City Council - Regular Meeting

Can you hear me, Mayor? I can hear you. I can't hear you.

You can't hear me? I can hear you now. I can hear you, yep. Perfect. We're just going to promote Councilor Al-Zubi before we start. All right, Madam Mayor.

Hey.

It's 530.

Great. And we have a quorum?

Yes, you do.

Great. Good evening, everyone. A quorum of the City Council being present. I wanted to call tonight's January 26th, 2026 regular meeting. of the Cambridge City Council to order. The first order of business is a roll call of members present, please. Interim Clerk Crane. Counselor Al-Zubi. Present.

Present. Vice Mayor Azeem. Present. present, Councilor Flaherty? Present. Present. Councilor McGovern? Councilor McGovern is absent. Councilor Nolan? Councilor Nolan is listed as absent. Councilor Simmons?

Present and audible.

Siddiqui? Present. Yes. And you have seven members recorded as present and two recorded as absent.

Thank you. Per the rules, please join me in the pledge of allegiance and pause for a moment of silence. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2025, adopted by Massachusetts General Court and approved by the Governor, the city is authorized to use remote participation at meetings of the Cambridge City Council. In addition to having members of the council participate remotely, we've set up Zoom teleconference for public comment. You can also view the meeting via the city's open meeting portal or on the city's cable channel 22. To speak during public comment, you must sign up at www.cambridgema.gov. You can also email your written comments for the record to the city clerk at cityclerk at cambridgema.gov.

We welcome your participation and you can sign up until 6pm. Please note that the City of Cambridge audio and video records this meeting and makes it available to the public for future viewing. In addition, third parties may also be audio and video recording this meeting. We now move on to public comment. Public comment may be made in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30A, Section 20G, and the City Council Rules 23D and 37. Once you finish speaking, the next speaker will be called. Individuals are not permitted to allocate the remainder of their time to other speakers. I ask that you state your name and address for the record and the item on the agenda that you're speaking on. We have... Over 59 speakers who have signed up. Each speaker will have two minutes for the rules. So we will start. Go ahead to public comment.

Madam Mayor? Yes. Councilor Nolan is listed as present.

Present. Thank you. Our first speaker will be Elizabeth Rucker, followed by Louise Venden, then Denise Gilson. Elizabeth, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Rucker and I live at 94 Montebello Road in Jamaica Plain. I managed the Democracy Center for eight years as the sole employee assigned to it within the Foundation for Civic Leadership and I'm here to speak on the landmark petition I continue to work, play, and participate in the Cambridge community multiple days per week. In my former position, I handled all aspects of 45 Mount Auburn Street, including its physical structures and all programs. Please vote in favor of landmarking the building at 45 Mount Auburn Street. Landmarking this building is key to ensuring the appropriateness of new construction and additions and to celebrate the robust history of civic engagement that was led from this building. The Historic Commission's favorable report lays out key architectural points at length, so I will speak to the importance of 45 Mount Auburn Street to the people and events of Cambridge in the last quarter century.

This building has sheltered and nurtured historic town and world changing efforts to create the city and world we want to see from the ground up. For 22 years, this building was a crossroads of good people doing good work. Here, generations came together to share wisdom and support. Anti-nuclear activists mentored those who would lead the movement for Black lives. Here, community leaders used our space to feed, clothe, and shelter immigrants turned out of shelters in Massachusetts. Here, Cambridge Bike Safety even organized to pass a city bike safety ordinance. Here, Harvard students from Fossil Fuel Divest planned their first direct actions. In 2019, trans people and their allies successfully mounted a campaign to defend transgender rights statewide. Aaron Swartz, the legendary internet freedom activist, had an office on the third floor. I do not have time to list everyone who has made history, big and small, at the Democracy Center.

but the Cambridge we are building together owes much of its positive history to the hearths at 45 Mount Auburn Street and I encourage you at this time when so much history is being maliciously rewritten to preserve our history and celebrate our victories Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Louise Venden, followed by Denise Gilson, then Dan Totten. Louise has not joined. We will go to Denise Gilson. Denise, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening. Denise Gilson, Executive Director for the Harvard Square Business Association. And I'm here speaking tonight on policy order. 2026-17. But before I do, I also want to just weigh in on 45 Mount Auburn Street. I think landmarking that building is a... It makes good sense and we should consider doing it. I think it means a lot to Harvard Square and Harvard Square's history and we should consider it. The recommendation from Charlie Sullivan. Thank you. I'm here tonight to speak about policy order regarding pedestrianization and I I want to first of all thank Councilors Nolan, Simmons, and Zusy as well as Mayor Siddiqui for supporting this policy order. As we all know, opening streets for pedestrians

for pedestrian access requires great care and thoughtfulness, especially so when we consider a business district like Harvard Square, which is comprised of approximately 44 acres, about a million square feet of retail, restaurant, Services, Hotels, and Social Service Providers, of which, by the way, over 70% are still locally owned independent. We also receive between 6 and 8 million visitors per year. And when we consider the talent that we have within the city, within the department heads and staff of the, I think we're now calling it the Department of Transportation, within community development, within the Harvard Square Business Association, as well as the Harvard Square Advisory. In this body,

City Council, as well as neighbors and property owners who have weighed in over the years regarding pedestrianization. I feel confident that there is not a group of people better suited who understand the cadence of Harvard Square and will work to enhance Not only the pedestrianization, but the curation of the public space. We want to partner with the City of Cambridge and hope that all of you will support this council order. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dan Totten, followed by Ian Simmons, then Jerry Puccillo. Dan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi, my name is Dan Totten. I live at 54 Bishop Allen Drive and I also want to speak in support of landmarking the building at 43 through 45 Mount Auburn Street. I am a community member, a former frequent user of the Democracy Center, and a signatory to the original landmark petition. The building does have objective historical and architectural significance. When it was built nearly 200 years ago, the surrounding area was pasture land. It was one of the few surviving structures from that era in a neighborhood whose appeal as a global tourist destination is inseparable from its historic built environment. The fact that this building has been listed since 1982 on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing resource is evidence that these concerns did not come out of thin air over the past year. I also do want to acknowledge what brought me to this process personally.

And it is the fact that for the last 25 years, the building served as the democracy center, one of the city's last remaining affordable gathering spaces for working class organizers and community groups. As Cambridge has transformed into a playground for the wealthy, working class residents and the spaces that serve them have been systematically erased. The closure of the Democracy Center is part of that problem. I do agree that discretion is important, and I share concerns about the historical process potentially blocking housing in some cases. But I think in this case, we have no promise of housing. I would love it if Mr. Simmons would promise us some housing on the site. But I think that it's very important that we maintain a degree of accountability over what happens on this site so that as we go forward that the owner is not allowed to do whatever he wants carte blanche

It's been almost two years since this happened and the promise of bringing the community in and engaging with us and meeting with us has never come to fruition. And I would really value an opportunity to have that. discussion respectfully and with Mr. Simmons, regardless of how this turns out. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ian Simmons, followed by Jerry Puccillo, then Marilyn Frankenstein. Ian, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Ian Simmons. Thanks for allowing us to speak tonight. I am president of the Foundation for Civic Leadership, a small nonprofit that created the Democracy Center at 45 Mount Auburn Street more than 20 years ago. I'm here tonight to respectfully reaffirm our opposition to landmarking 45 Mount Auburn. We appreciate the work of the Cambridge Door Commission and want to thank Charlie Sullivan and the staff that said three key points remain. First, the property is already appropriately protected within the historic Harvard Square Conservation District, where changes already require a certificate of appropriateness. The city's current framework already provides the right kind of oversight. Second, while the 19th century Greek revival facade is notable, it already has adequate protection, and the history of 45 Mount Auburn does not meet the threshold for historic landmark designation when compared to other landmarks across the city. Finally, I've always been deeply committed to improving 45 Mount Auburn as a civic hub.

A landmark designation creates undue burdens and unneeded risks for the nonprofit civic project going forward and would limit the amount of civics, our ability to continue to expand civic space on site. We would strongly encourage the Council to keep our ability to maximize the expansion of civic space and help us improve civic, Cambridge civic and community life. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you. And I'm just going to call on Councilor McGovern. He's been here for a while. Here's the roll call.

Councilor McGovern. Present.

Next speaker is Jerry Puccillo, followed by Marilyn Frankenstein, then Neil Miller. Jerry, you have the floor. Please go ahead. Two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Jerry Paciello and I'm a consultant to the Foundation for Civic Leadership. I'll keep my comments very brief since you just heard from Ian. I have had decades of real estate development experience, including for 15 years a position as the Director of Housing Development for the Archdiocese of Boston. In that role and others, I've acquired extensive experience in the rehab of existing historic assets, and I deeply appreciate the value of preserving such assets. It's partially due to that experience that the foundation has asked me to assist in the redevelopment of the property at 45 Mount Auburn Street. Much of my work has been focused on building low and moderate income housing for people with disabilities, as well as repositioning these assets to serve ongoing strategic goals of nonprofit organizations such as the Foundation for Civic Leadership. I accepted this specific assignment from the foundation

because I believe they have demonstrated that they are aligned with the city's goals and have worked for decades to provide civic space to enrich and build community at this location. As you've heard from Ian, they hope to only deepen this commitment going forward and it would limit their resolve if you were to add further constraints on their ability to do so. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marilyn Frankenstein, followed by Neil Miller, then David Halperin. Marilyn, you have the floor. Two minutes. Please go ahead.

Sorry, am I unmuted? You are. Please go ahead. Sorry, I couldn't see the sign. Marilyn Frankenstein, 40-plus year resident of West Cambridge. I'm here to support landmark designation for 45 Mount Auburn Street, the Nathaniel Stickney House. due to its 200-year historical significance for Cambridge and a building that was home to the Democracy Center for a quarter of a century. I've always been interested in the value of our architectural surroundings. Particularly how they ground us in our history. And this building, recognized on the National Register of Historic Places, is one I hope Cambridge will value by designating it a landmark. Beyond that historical concern is also that building's more current quarter of a century history is the democracy center. A comfortable and safe space for a variety of social justice organizations to meet and host events.

I'm a community coalition member of HART, Cambridge's holistic emergency alternative response team, which developed their model for unarmed crisis response in this space. and which also hosted a number of community gatherings at the Democracy Center. I've been to other organizations' educational events there and art builds in that same building. It was an important space not just for each individual organization, but for the natural Significant collaborations among social justice organizations. This is also an important part of the history of 45 Mount Auburn Street that I urge you to consider in voting yes to approve its landmark designation.

Apologies. I just wanted to make a quick announcement. Some folks are having some issues with the stream. We're working on that, but this meeting is being recorded, so we'll have a video of it up immediately after. Our next speaker is Neal Johnson. Miller, followed by David Halperin, then Kelsey Kelter. Neil, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Neil Miller, 425 Mass Ave. First, I wanted to just give a note of appreciation. Big thank you to all the folks at DPW living on Mass Ave. I could see and I'm calling in in support of passing tonight. The Cambridge Street Zoning Petition. I'm especially excited that the sites on Webster Street and Windsor Street going towards Union Square will Now be encouraged and incentivized to turn into homes that we really need near jobs and near transit.

I am disappointed that it seems like there is a push to move the zoning or the allowable heights on the rest of Cambridge Street down. below what it even was already moved down to, eight stories to six stories. Everyone on this council basically says that they support transit-oriented development and this was part of a long-time plan to Thank you for joining us. But before the amendments are voted on, I would encourage us to ask city staff whether the changes on Cambridge Street will make rents higher or lower.

for people struggling to stay in Cambridge whether it will provide more opportunities for small businesses or fewer whether it will make Cambridge Street more or less Friendly to other forms of transportation. I think these are important questions to ask as we're making these decisions. Thank you. Have a good night.

Thank you. Our next speaker is David Halperin, followed by Kelsey Kelter, then Ethan Frank. David, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, David Haprin, 14 Valentine Street, Unit 3. I'm also calling in to express my support for passing the Cambridge Street zoning petition and not letting it expire. Back during the multifamily housing process we were shown how under any scenario we're not going to hit our housing production goals and you know the multifamily housing would be one component of getting us back on track towards something more reasonable. But the majority of our housing was projected to still be built on our squares and corridors. um so you know and you know during all these processes we're always told you know well the place that we should really be able to having is the Squareson corridor so you know so much resistance to this um now that we're finally doing it is really Disappointing and, you know, continuing to water it down.

If we're gonna have, you know, most of Cambridge Street be the same height as the neighborhoods, then, you know, it's, um... You know, like, how is most of our housing going to be on our corridors? It doesn't make sense. It's not consistent with what people have said they wanted in the past. So, you know, I... I hope we can really, you know, like, move forward with the best compromise that we can tonight. But, you know, we... But, yeah, like, we... and we continue under every scenario where we are falling behind on our housing goals and we need to take that seriously and we need to you know continue to to find new strategies to move that forward and to get the housing.

We built both market rate and affordable as inclusionary and every tool in the toolbox. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kelsey Kelter, followed by Ethan Frank, then Dana Bullister. Kelsey, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Excellent. Distinguished city councillors, thank you for pivoting to a virtual setting amid the New England snowfall. My name is Kelsey Kelter and I'm a resident of 71 Thorndike Street in Cambridge. I'm here to share my strong support for Policy Order 2. regarding the incorporation of plant-based solutions into the Sustainable Cambridge Initiative, which aligns with the plant-based treaty. In a professional capacity, I am a dedicated environmentalist and sustainability consultant specializing in enterprise-wide corporate decarbonization. As a volunteer, I co-lead the Sierra Clubs of Massachusetts Energy Justice Team, and I am a nine-year vegan for the planet, going back to my undergrad at Boston College. At the nexus of sustainability, environmentalism, and equitable justice sits the plant-based treaty. My fellow campaigners will share more detail of the campaign in due course.

But I am here to speak on the environmental effects of plant-based defaults, which can be included in the city's plant-based food strategy for events. Defonts make plant-based options the standard no-action choice, with meat and dairy available upon request. Studies have shown that serving plant-based food as the default option decreases meat consumption by up to 87%, thus reducing food's GHG emissions by an average of 40% and the water footprint therein by 24%. This behavioral nudging technique increases sustainable, healthier eating while preserving freedom of choice. Thus, serving meals that work for all dietary restrictions reduces overhead and food waste within our boundaries. Cambridge can use plant-based defaults and is an effective tool at the events to meet our carbon reduction goals while saving on food costs and improving health and inclusivity in the community.

This will help Cambridge reach its net zero GHG emissions by 2050. I ask this council to formally adopt Podency Order 2 and I thank you to the councillors thus forward who have endorsed this petition and for the whole council for considering the adoption of the plant-based treaty for Cambridge.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ethan Frank, followed by Dana Bullister, then Jason Alves. Ethan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

My name is Ethan. I live at 632 Mass Ave. and the MBTA's cancellation of their ALYF redevelopment plan reminds me Why it's so important that we use all of the space we have available as efficiently as possible Which is just one of the many reasons we should upzone Cambridge Street tonight. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Dana Bullister. Dana has not joined. We will go to Jason Alves, followed by Jim Monteverde, then Taylor Cross. Jason, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Jason Alves, Executive Director of the East Cambridge Business Association, 544 Cambridge Street. I wanted to speak on the Cambridge Street zoning and the communication tonight. So just to Thanks to Councilor Nolan and Mayor Siddiqui for recommending what I think is some good changes and makes for a nice compromise on the Cambridge Street zoning petition. I think for us it's important that the WebSERAB intersection, it's something that we've been advocating for close to a decade now. I think there was some missed opportunities because of some previous zoning, but I think getting that up zone there as a transition into the Boynton Yards area of Somerville and Union Square can really help create some good transit-oriented housing development. That doesn't really cause much displacement.

I think the reduction along Cambridge Street to six stories is a nice compromise. I think it gets in line with some of the recommendations of the Our Cambridge Street study. Cambridge Street basically has been upzoned recently to six stories and this kind of refines that zoning to make it more manageable for the neighborhood. So I think that that's a nice compromise and I think we're supportive of all this knowing that you will be revisiting the ground floor commercial requirements and a subsequent petition that is very very important to the district and something that we want to see happen and I guess quickly so Hope you can pass this tonight. Again, I think it's a good compromise that can hopefully make a lot of different parties that have concerns and hopes for Cambridge Street and bring everybody in line.

So thank you all very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jim Monteverde, followed by Taylor Cross, then Anatoly Borisov. Jim, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Jim Monteverde, if you can unmute yourself. You have the floor, two minutes.

Sorry. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Jim Monteverde of 12 Oak Street in Mid Square. I ask that you let the Cambridge Street zoning petition expire. and require that it be revised with the benefit of a robust open public review process. I support the Nolan-Siddiqui amendment to change the height limit in the new district CAM8 to six stories. and asked that that same limit applied to the new district CAM 10 in the heart of Inman Square. I suggest that the proposed design review thresholds of 75,000 square feet for residential projects be reduced So that most, if not all, of new development along Cambridge Street require review by the planning board to foster design competence. The zoning proposal should also be revised to allow existing retail uses to continue in any new construction to maintain the retail character and vibrancy of the street.

Please let the zoning petition expire so that it can be improved to reflect the public's vision for Cambridge Street through public review and comment. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Taylor Cross, followed by Anatoly Borisov, then Hannah Roach. Taylor, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening. My name is Taylor Cross, and my address is 1315 Harvard Yard Mail Center, Cambridge. And I'm here in strong support of Cambridge endorsing the Plant-Based Treaty and Policy Order No. 2. I'm a lifelong classical ballet dancer and a first-year pre-med student at Harvard planning to pursue cardiovascular surgery. Through years of intensive ballet training and internships with vascular surgeons, I became deeply interested in the intersection of nutrition, chronic disease, and preventative medicine. Thank you so much for joining us. Heart disease, diabetes, and many cancers are now the leading causes of death and disability in the US. These are largely preventable conditions. Yet our healthcare system spends trillions of dollars treating symptoms rather than addressing root causes.

One of the most effective evidence-based tools we have is also one of the simplest. A whole foods plant-based diet has been shown to prevent, treat, and in many cases reverse chronic disease. Leading physicians and researchers, including many within the Cambridge and Harvard Medical Community, have demonstrated that plant-based diets can lower cholesterol, improve insulin sensitivity and significantly reduce cardiovascular risk. What I find especially meaningful about the plant-based treaty is that it recognizes the interconnectedness of human health, environmental sustainability, and food systems. Cities like Cambridge are uniquely positioned to lead by example by endorsing policies that support healthier, more sustainable food environments Thank you for joining us.

Thank you so much for your leadership and for considering this important vote.

Our next speaker is Anatoly Borisov followed by Hannah Roach, then Rosa Diaz-Rivera, Anatoly, two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Anatol Borisov. I live at 153 Webster Avenue, and I'm speaking about the proposed amendment to the Cambridge Zoning Ordinance near Cambridge Street, which I am strongly in support of. I'd argue that it is the responsibility of any city to balance its ability to provide housing services and job opportunities to its residents. There are clearly many great reasons to live in Cambridge, and frankly, it's unlikely that people will stop wanting to move to and remain in Cambridge. Between the vibrant communities, job opportunities and being a part of the extensive Boston metropolitan area, populations will likely continue to grow in Cambridge. And to handle this transition gracefully and equitably, it is important that Cambridge provide enough housing to meet their demand. The exceedingly low vacancy rate of apartments and high housing and rental prices indicate that despite historical effort, Cambridge still lags behind. When this occurs, the wealthiest that can handle these prices remain and the rest are excluded from the community.

I think an important part of a graceful transition to the demands that higher population brings comes with recognizing that housing and transportation are needed in tandem. As a result, the proposed upzoning of Cambridge Street serves the prime candidate as an effective location to provide housing due to its accessibility to means of public transport. While there can and should be discussion about if these zoning changes in themselves are adequate to promote the development of housing, to me there is little doubt that this is a step in the direction of building more housing in Cambridge. Thus, for that reason, I am in support of the proposed establishment of new zoning districts on Cambridge Street as a necessary, albeit not sufficient, step to allow Cambridge to equitably meet housing demand. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Hannah Roach. Hannah, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Hannah Roach. I live at 20 Orchard Street in Cambridge, and I'm a master's student of nutrition at Tufts and volunteer for the local plant-based treaty campaign. And I'm testifying to ask you to vote favorably on policy order number two. As a volunteer, I wanted to use this time to talk a bit about the Plant-Based Treaty as a campaign. This is a global grassroots initiative that brings food systems into the climate crisis conversation Plant-based diets are proven to be the most environmentally sustainable and can also be the healthiest diets for us. Currently, 65 other cities worldwide have endorsed the plant-based treaty with campaigns spreading across every continent. One notable recent endorsement that I would like to mention is from the city of Belém in Brazil. Bulam is located in the Amazon, where mass deforestation has been ceaselessly occurring, often illegally, in order to raise and feed cattle and meet the rising demands for meat exports to the global north.

They recognize the need for a plant-based treaty, and so should we. Cambridge already deeply acknowledges the climate crisis and cares for the health of those who live here, so it logically follows that the city would join this global coalition and promote plant-based eating. Also, I'd like to clarify that this policy order does not take away any existing food options from any city resident. It only aims to increase accessibility and education regarding plant-based foods and diets. On top of that, the local plant-based treaty team is here to provide any assistance the city may need when implementing this new policy order. Thank you for your time, councillors, and I again ask for all of you to vote in support of and formally adopt policy order number two. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rosa Diaz-Rivera, followed by N.J. Park, then Carl Schmeckpepper. Rosa, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Rosa Diaz-Rivera, and I have lived in 50 Cambridge Park Drive for two and a half years. I am here to ask the council to vote favorably on policy order number two. Research shows that shifting towards plant based eating delivers real economic benefits for households and governments. Reducing reliance on animal agriculture globally would allow us to produce enough additional food to feed hundreds of millions of people. In addition, transitioning to plant-based diets would also save on medical expenses. In the United States, continuing meat-heavy diets is projected to cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year in health care costs. while a broader shift towards a plant-based diet could save up to 250 billion annually and prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths Link to chronic disease. Importantly, plant-based diets are not more expensive for households, as is often assumed.

Oxford University research found that vegan diets are the most affordable, cutting food costs by up to one-third. A separate study confirmed that plant-based consumers spend less on food than omnivores overall. These findings directly challenged the idea that healthy, sustainable eating is financially out of reach for many people. For a city like Cambridge where cost of living is a major concern, this evidence highlights the importance of public information campaigns that promote plant-based eating as a budget-friendly option. By clearly communicating the financial benefits, Cambridge can empower residents to make choices that stretch household budgets and reduce long-term health care costs. Public education is a low cost, high impact tool that benefits everyone in the community. Thank you so much for your time.

Our next speaker is NJ Park, followed by Carl Schmeckpepper, then Nina Wu. NJ, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, councillors. My name is NJ and I'm a Cambridge resident at 332 Broadway and an MBA student at Northeastern University. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm here not as a policy expert, but as someone who comes from a long lineage of Korean home cooks and professional chefs. Food is how my family show love. My uncle owns a Korean sushi restaurant in Austin called Oppa Sushi, where we serve classic sushi and popular Korean dishes. Like many immigrant-owned restaurants, it's built on tradition, pride, and hard work. At the same time, I've seen how traditional Korean cuisine can unintentionally exclude people. Many staple dishes like jjigae stews and even kimchi rely on animal-based ingredients. When vegan friends or family dine at Korean restaurants, their options are often limited. They're there, but not fully included. I don't see plant-based treaty as an attack on tradition. I see it as an invitation. An invitation for creativity, evolution, and inclusion.

This policy encourages restaurants across cuisine to expand who they serve and give chefs the space to interpret tradition while responding to today's climate realities. It also supports local businesses like Cambridge's own Mom & Son Kitchen. While they're not exclusively plant-based Korean business, Their catering model allowed them to adopt menus more flexibly than many brick-and-mortar restaurants, making them a valuable resource for individuals and city-sponsored events looking to include plant-based Korean options. Cambridge has long led on climate and equity, and I urge you to vote favorably on policy order number two for the climate, for local businesses, and for more inclusive food culture. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carl Schmeckpepper, followed by Nina Wu, then Young Kim. Carl, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

My name is Carl Schmicker. I live in 249 3rd Street in East Cambridge, and I'd like to speak today on the Cambridge Street zoning petition. I urge the council to please adopt the Cambridge Street zoning petition, increase the density along our squares and corridors, is something that's critical to meeting the city's goals on housing production, making housing more affordable for everybody and environmentally by making it so people are able to live are closer to public transportation and are less car-independent. Further reducing the heights of this zoning position would be a mistake. It would limit how many people would be able to live here. which will limit how many people will be able to have cheaper housing. So I urge the council to adopt the zoning condition with no further amendments. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Nina Wu. We're at speaker number 22 for those waiting. Nina, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, city councilors. My name is Nina, and I live at 16 Holyoke Street. I am a first year student at Harvard College and the co-president of Harvard Undergrad Plant-Based. I am here to ask you to vote favorably on policy order number two and endorse the plant-based treaty. Many others are speaking on the environmental and health benefits that come with promoting plant-based diets. But I would like to take this opportunity to speak on what I believe to be the greatest benefit of all. Promoting plant-based food allows us to shift towards a more compassionate food system through improving animal welfare. In animal agriculture, sentient animals, each with their own personality and lived experiences, are viewed as nothing more than soon-to-be food. Their entire lives are predetermined means to an end. With victimized animals being so hidden behind this industrial system, even the kindest people have trouble viewing the ones on their plate and in the fridge as victims at all.

This policy order of promoting plant-based diets helps not only protect the planet, but also animal welfare. Thank you for your time, councillors, and I again ask you to vote favorably on policy order number two.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Young Kim, followed by Casey Karenfield and Sarah Suzuki. Young, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Young-Dem, 17 Norris Street, speaking against or laying the Cambridge Street corridor zoning petition. Because when staff descriptions are accepted without independent verification of case The public record, the council's role shifts from legislative oversight to rubber stamping, and that creates real institutional risk. If you vote tonight to ordain the Cambridge District Court, Corito's only petition is written together with the Mass Avenue amendment already adopted. Please share this section to complete. Both corridor maps and descriptive text will enter the journey module without humor at the station by the city club.

Absolute overlays such as the Mass Avenue overlay and the Leslie Porter overlay and the replaced Business A5 and C districts will also be left dangling in the cold. They say consistency is the sign of a small mind, but in zoning ordinance, consistency is the backbone and must be verified each time a new amendment is introduced. That discipline has been neglected for far too long, and the Cambridge Street corridor may be where those accumulated risks finally destabilize the zoning ordinance. One practical consequence is that rapid upzoning allowing polar projects as override

is now rewarding the incentives the city deliberately created to give nonprofit affordable developers a competitive edge over market developers. One concrete example, Even with the maps and text I could find in the agenda materials, I could not reliably trace political boundaries. Has any counselor independently tried?

Thank you, Kim. Apologies. Your time is expired. Please email the remainder of your comment. Our next speaker is Casey Carenfill. Casey, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Casey, you're on the phone. You need to unmute. I believe it's star six to unmute on the phone. All right. There you go. There you go.

Okay. I'm so sorry for that. Thank you. My name is Cottonfield Casey. Although I'm currently a resident on Hackensack Road in Boston, I am a longtime Cambridge community member through family work, organizing, and I am speaking in support of the landmark designation for 45 Mount Auburn Street, the Nathaniel Stickney House, not only because of its 200-year historical significance, But because this is home to the Democracy Center for a quarter of a century, and I may not be as eloquent as my peers and the former speakers, but to speak from my heart, I have personally been a guest, a participant, and an organizer of many gatherings and initiatives that have been housed and took place in the former Democracy Center.

We as community members across communities came together to work and build and protect the Cambridge and the world that we held in our hearts. My children organized there with other youth. My peers, we fought so many good battles and won and lost and recouped and organized together. and one of the things I can say that is important, this house is unlike any others. What happened there is of great historical significance. We saw everything from Standing Rock, Black Lives Matter, trans rights, and these are things that have become a very important part of the history in not just our community, but across many communities. And so I ask that you please consider supporting our request for historical designation. And I am

I'm very grateful to thank you council members for your time and for your commitment and I hope that you can remember to consider how important this is to the people not just in our communities that Cambridge has such a commitment to

Apologies, Karen Phil. If you can please email the remainder of your comment to citycouncil at cambridgema.gov. Our next speaker is Sarah Suzuki. I do not see Sarah in the Zoom. We're going to go to James Zoll, followed by William Hughes, then Trudy Goodman. James, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. This is James Zoll, 203 Pemberton Street. Since 2022, zoning along Cambridge Street was the subject of community meetings, surveys, hearings, lots of public comment and online discussions. People who participated in these efforts got a chance to contribute to the resulting zoning. Each participant did not get, nor should they get, a set of zoning amendments that exactly match what they asked for. The claims that the results before you is somehow not legitimate and needs to be done over merely demonstrates the fact that Cambridge Street and probably every other street and neighborhood is home to some residents who don't need or don't want more housing in their area.

Citywide surveys in the past several elections indicate that the majority of residents recognize the harmful consequences of our long-running shortage of housing. Even if the requested do-over of public engagement is accomplished quickly, the slow startup time for new housing in Cambridge ensures that our housing crisis will be no less severe when the next version of this zoning proposal would come here for a vote. Please do not toss aside all the work that has been done so far and proceed to enact the Cambridge Street Zoning tonight. Thank you.

Our next speaker is William Hughes. William, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Followed by Trudy Goodman. William, you have two minutes.

Hi, my name is William Hughes and I live at 20 Orchard Street, North Cambridge. So I came here today to voice my support for policy order number two and specifically discuss the environmental need for a plant-based treaty. I have a master's degree in mechanical engineering and I work as a mechanical energy systems designer where I've dedicated my life to decarbonizing buildings throughout Massachusetts. I chose this career path because I deeply care about taking action to combat the climate crisis. And when I learned about the devastating environmental impacts of animal agriculture, that's when I knew I had to adopt a plant-based diet. Our food system accounts for about one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions, which is larger than even the transportation sector. Shifting towards a plant-based diet is a huge component of addressing climate change. When it comes to decarbonization, every little bit counts.

And similarly, when we choose to purchase Thank you so much for joining us. that we as consumers want sustainable plant-based foods. I know the city of Cambridge has climate reduction goals already in place. And by enacting policy order number two and formally endorsing the plant-based treaty, the city will become further aligned with sustainable best practices. So I sincerely hope that we share the same commitment to mitigating the climate crisis and I'll leave by asking you to vote favorably on policy order number two.

Our next speaker is Trudy Goodman, followed by Adriana Pratt, then Mark Keebler. Trudy, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening. I live, can you hear me okay?

We can. Please go ahead.

I live at 1221 Cambridge Street, the Inman Square, cast two apartments in Inman Square. I've lived there for 33 years now. There's a lot of misinformation floating around here this evening. I'm not going to necessarily address that, but here's what I do want to address. I'm in a building that's 15 stories high. Down the street from me is Miller's River, which I believe is 18 stories high. There are high rises in this area already. Those high-rises, basically the people who live in those high-rises are Section 8 tenants or voucher tenants. New high-risers will not help people like me and the people who live in Millers River. For people to believe that is misinformation Inclusionary will not assist people predominantly who are 11 to 20 AMI, which is the people in my building. There are 126 units in this building.

Most of these people are low income. They will not be able to get into these high-rises and into the inclusionary that some of these people are suggesting. Here more importantly is the people in this neighborhood have not been given an opportunity to discuss any of this, including the merchants who have long-term businesses here in Inman Square. So everybody who wants to ram this through. What would be the problem if we waited just a couple of months and heard from everybody and found out just what people in this neighborhood want instead of people trying to ram this down everyone's throat? Please put Agenda Item 3 on hold so that people in this neighborhood have the opportunity to speak about what they need because we actually live here. Thank you very much and have a very good evening.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Adriana Pratt, followed by Mark Keebler, then Marilee Meyer. Adriana, please go ahead. Two minutes. Adriana, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor.

Yes, hello, sorry. Good evening, council members. I am Adriana Pratt at 543 Putnam Avenue, and I'm here to strongly support policy order number two, the plant-based treaty. I am an artist, scientist, mother, immigrant, and my passion is to inspire urgently needed action for the human-made environmental crisis through my art and through the artist collective I founded I3C. I do not need to speak about the environmental and climate crisis that we are experiencing when seven of the nine planetary boundaries have been surpassed. Animal agriculture is a major contributor to this, in addition to the cruelty inflicted to species that never agreed to become a human commodity. As it has been eloquently described before me, a plant-based diet can prevent and even reverse chronic diseases, so it is dramatically better for the health of all of our community's members.

I'd have loved it if my daughter had had more plant-based food options when she was at CRLS years ago. In a time when our federal government is pushing us into a dystopian world, having you endorse the plant-based treaty in Cambridge will be a tremendous win for the environmental cause. and exemplary leadership and president for other cities, states and world regions. Thank you for all your ongoing work on climate issues and for embracing The plant-based treaty today to contribute to a livable future for all populations on our cherished planet.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Mark Keebler, followed by Marilee Meyer, then Suzanne Blier. Mark, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

All right, I think I'm unmuted now. So good evening, councillors. My name is Mark Keebler, and I live at 52 Porter Street in East Cambridge. And thank you very much for your time. all the work that you put into these zoning proposals. I'm speaking today to strongly urge you to support the Cambridge Street rezoning and to move it forward. So this city has spent years engaging residents through Envision Cambridge and our Cambridge Street planning processes and affordable housing has repeatedly emerged as the most important issue facing the city through residents surveys. And there is no way to address this without making more housing. With this ordinance, the city would be following through on its commitments and engaging with residents' longstanding concerns And in particular, this proposal focuses growth where it makes the most sense. Long major corridors, near transit, jobs, and neighborhood businesses.

And this proposal height is not just a developer giveaway. It's tied directly to public benefits, like active ground floor uses, better street design, inclusionary housing. So that means that new development has to contribute to the daily life on Cambridge Street. to make things more walkable, have more support for local businesses and the greater potential for sustainable livings. So we often talk about equity, affordability, and sustainability as our values in Cambridge. And if you don't enable housing in places like this, Places with transit jobs and services available, these values remain to be just talk. So this ordinance doesn't solve everything, but it's a concrete step in the right direction that aligns our zoning with our stated values. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marilee Meyer. Marilee, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Marilee Meyer, 10 Dana Street. Well, an amendment reducing heights on Cambridge Street to six stories, excluding Inman Square. It doesn't include other egregious issues. Please let Cambridge Street expire for a more comprehensive urban plan. Expiration, often pointed out by Councilor McGovern, is not the final word. A continuation is not relitigating, but a more efficient consolidating of amendments, possibly even helping Central Square. Forcing this petition ignores unresolved issues, including evictions of residents, small businesses, labs as of right, insufficient open space, setbacks, parking. Residential and commercial projects should have the same design and planning board review at 20,000 square feet. Inclusionary is unpredictable and unqualifiable, and there is no mention of affordable housing at all.

Vote Now, Fix Later leaves this plant wanting in its piecemeal state. And pro-developer councillors have been reshaping Cambridge into the lifeless playgrounds of the super-rich, except for some tone-deaf housing efforts passed as of right without compromise. And that's the problem, without compromise. Such is the case of the Harvard Square Historic District, where a proposed or an initially proposed residential 12 tower project was proposed for the democracy center and on a small footprint, it would be essentially a dorm. Stripped of size, shape and design oversight, the CHC had landmarked it because of its importance.

We continue to see the council's arbitrary number crunching in all upzoning without nuance. Nuance is, you need nuance. Do better. Think holistically about ramifications. This is not an all or nothing for me or against me. There has to be a pathway. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Suzanne Blier, followed by Timothy Kosky, then Ruth Pfeffer. Suzanne, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Suzanne Blier, Five Fuller Place. First, please landmark the Democracy Center, not only because it's really important Historically in Harvard Square, but because also the democracy of this country is really under threat. And this has been a critically important place within the city of Cambridge and within the area. Secondly, on the Cambridge Street upzoning, my first choice would be to let this expire. At the same time, I want to thank Mayor Siddiqui and Councilor Nolan were bringing parts of this down to six stories. At the same time, going forward, we have to realize that this is gonna bring more lease terminations. and that it's unlikely to have any affordable housing particularly with the Patrick Barrett lawsuit in play. I for once actually agree with something that Neil Miller said which is

We need to find out if this is going to make rents lower or higher and my feeling based on what we're seeing around the city is that this is not only going to cause people to lose their leases but also will be making rents higher. I urge you if the amendment does pass to limit ground floor space to 1500 square feet so we can encourage local businesses and to not allow banks beyond 25 linear feet on the ground floor. I urge you strongly to support design oversight for anything above three stories. We're getting some really We all know that we can do better and good design. It generally is no more expensive than really bad design. So I urge you to let this lapse at the same time, I think.

Mayor Siddiqui and Councilor Nolan, and happy snow day.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Timothy Koski, followed by Ruth Pfeffer, then Lee Farris. Timothy, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hi, my name is Timothy Koski. I live on 97 Elmwood Street in Cambridge. I'm here to ask the counselors to give support to the Cambridge Street Upzoning Amendment. From what I have read, it seems deeply We do desperately need more housing and more building in this city. And so I would hope that the counselors would support this amendment. Thank you.

For those waiting, we are at speaker number 34 of 65 speakers. Our next speaker is Ruth Pfeffer, followed by Lee Farris and Zion Sheeran. Ruth, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening, City Councillors. My name is Ruth Pfeffer, and I'm a high school senior who has lived at 171 Harvey Street for my entire life. I'm here to support Policy Order No. 2, the Plant-Based Treaty. I've loved this city since I was little. While I grew up here, I learned about the extreme and widespread violence towards animals involved in our food system. As a pacifist, I found this cruelty unconscionable and I was inspired to become an advocate. Last year, I organized the Eat for Impact campaign to add plant-based options to restaurants in Cambridge. I'd like to thank the City for supporting me, including some of you in this meeting. It's easy to feel despair when I think of the billions of animals struggling every day, but Cambridge's long-standing commitment to environmentalism gives me hope.

As I go off to college I plan to keep advocating for the world that I believe in. I dream of someday living in a country with a non-violent food system that's based on bringing communities together. And building that food system starts right here with a plant-based treaty. Thank you for your time and for considering this important policy order.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Leigh Ferris, followed by Zion Shearing, then Helen Walker. Leigh, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Good evening. Lee Ferris from Norfolk Street in the Port. I'm speaking for the Cambridge Residents Alliance. We encourage councilors to vote for the Nolan Amendment for six floors. However, the Cambridge Residence Alliance still thinks the petition should expire, followed by a brief community process on the proposed zoning, and then all the remaining issues including the active ground floor requirement. can be resolved and presented in one comprehensive petition. It is the wrong approach to conduct a planning study then design the zoning but not allow residents and businesses to discuss that zoning except during public comment to the council. Our biggest concern is not knowing the amount of inclusionary housing estimated to result from this zoning. We ask that council require those inclusionary estimates before passing this zoning.

and state to city staff that those estimates must be produced for every future zoning petition. We believe that the proposed zoning will result in six floor buildings with not even active ground floor and not having inclusionary units. That could be fixed, but it would take another petition to do that. We asked the council to delay implementation. If the Cambridge Street petition passes with the amendments, the zoning should only take effect after the proposed petition that will require active ground floor space is passed. In summary, we ask councilors to vote in favor of the Nolan Amendment for six floors and to not support the petition as a whole.

Some outstanding issues that could be addressed include not allowing labs as of right, increased project review requirements, increased open space and street tree requirements, and the requirements for active ground floor use. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Zion Shearing, followed by Helen Walker, then Brennan Waters. Zion, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, Zion Chair and 401 Washington Street. I am calling in asking the council to let the Cambridge Street zoning petition expire. I do think that the amendments being proposed would be better. However, while looking at the amendment, I still am not content with the lack of addressing I brought this up several times and shared the story that I had with my mother who recently passed of cancer and her Her experiences getting in and out of vehicles and how difficult that was. And I think that the council taking the time to make amendments when it came to height of buildings, but not properly address disabled residents. is really telling to the priorities the council is pushing.

Additionally, I'd like to state that if this is truly about a housing crisis and we're working on making sure more residents can live here. Having labs by right does the exact opposite, encourages space that may not even be used properly due to the fact that right now about a third of lab space in the greater Boston area is vacant. So overall, I do think that the amendment would be better for the zoning, but I am requesting that people that counselors allow it to expire and that they focus on priorities such as accessibility and potentially reigning in the lab space. Thanks.

Bye.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Helen Walker, followed by Brennan Waters, then Hallie Trial. Helen, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Sorry about that, Helen. If you can try to unmute yourself now, you have two minutes. Can you hear me now?

Yes, please go ahead. Helen Walker, 43 Linnean Street. Thank you for the chance to speak about the Cambridge Street Zoning Petition. Profuse thanks to Councilor Nolan and Mayor Siddiqui for their amendments. Of course the results of a study involving significant taxpayer funds and working group time should not be set aside without a legitimate process. And thanks for highlighting the need for further action to protect ground floor business, especially small business. but there's more to do. On December 15th, council voted to reduce the maximum height at Edmond Square from 10 stories to eight stories. Hasn't happened, isn't in this agenda package. When is that going to happen? There's no zoning map or descriptive text. How do we verify the boundaries of Cambridge 8, 10, 12, and 15? and where are the amendments the community keeps asking for? Inclusionary units required at over four stories, same as C1 District.

Rear setbacks over five feet. New and existing residents staring into each other's bedrooms 10 feet away will be miserable. These will not be home for casting roots and raising families in. Open space, comparable to all other residential districts, at least 15%, and should be mostly green and at grade. Remember the planning board comment, no open space will lead to a really crappy urban streetscape. Project review at a lower threshold. All projects over four stories or 20,000 square feet. Accessible drop-off and delivery. As I say, more to do, and thank you for your efforts.

Helen, I guess that was the end. We will go to Brennan Waters, followed by Hallie Trial, then Lori Sheffield. Brennan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Brennan Waters. I live at 14 Remington Street. I previously lived at 466 Cambridge Street in East Cambridge. I wanted to voice my support for increased housing on Cambridge Street. Housing is so expensive to Cambridge and I'd really love to stay in the city long term and hopefully raise a family here, but today it's hard to envision it with housing prices so high and the premium of staying in Cambridge being so large. More housing will help drive down costs for everyone, for young people who want to join the great job market, but also for families who want to stay here long term. and help residents like me who want to contribute to Cambridge, build life in Cambridge, be able to stay in Cambridge. This is a great opportunity to build more housing on underutilized lots as well as contribute to increased density in our corridors. Thank you very much.

Apologies, I'm having a little delay with my internet. Our next speaker is Hallie Trial, followed by Lori Sheffield, then Camilla Elvis. Hallie, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hello, thank you for the opportunity to speak here and thank you to the councillors for bringing this proposal to UPSONE. Cambridge Street Forward. I really appreciate this as well as the community engagement that led to it. I'm one of the officers of the MIT Graduate Student Council, which represents over 6,000 graduate students living You know, around MIT and Cambridge, Somerville and Boston. And I'm here to share the perspective of graduate students. This zoning change will help limit market rate rent increases by mitigating housing scarcity while also allowing the construction of desperately needed affordable units. and data from two surveys, one conducted by the GSC and one conducted by my home department, highlight the urgency of the housing crisis as an equity issue.

Only 40% of graduate students in my department who identify as first-generation college students agreed that they were able to transition to MIT without severe financial burden. The financial burden of relocation is primarily driven by high housing costs in the area. and our GSC survey similarly found that first-generation and low-income students were those most impacted by high housing costs. Multiple students even reported having to live in Airbnbs for their first few weeks in Cambridge because our low vacancy rate made it impossible for them to find a place to live before they needed to start their program. Our striking results motivated us to continue pressuring both local government and the MIT administration to reduce the cost of housing. Failure to address our housing crisis will not diminish the desirability of the excellent educational, professional, cultural and professional experiences Cambridge has to offer.

but it will limit who can take advantage of these opportunities if we want Cambridge to be a place that welcomes people of all backgrounds we cannot allow housing scarcity to continue acting as a barrier to low-income people who are here to pursue their dreams

Thank you, Hallie. We will go to Lori Sheffield, followed by Camilla Elvis, Sydney Snow, then Kathy Hoffman. Lori, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Okay, I'm unmuted. Hello, I'm a Cambridge Port resident and I've lived in Cambridge for decades. I'm sure that All the speakers in favor of increased housing are both speaking from their hearts and absolutely correct in terms of the pressures that many people face in terms of housing cost. There are other speakers who have gone through the proposed amendments in more detail. I'd like to speak to the active use of the ground floor issue which was spelled out pretty carefully related to existing businesses on Cambridge Street. This is one of the few semi-intact shopping districts in Cambridge and includes businesses I regularly use. The hardware store, the craft store, the rug store, the paint store. This is one of the places in Cambridge where you can actually shop locally.

As a property owner and a homeowner and someone who brought up children in this city, I want these types of shopping areas to be possible. And I think that careful work on this proposal can make that more possible. So I would like to support the Nolan Amendment about The number of stories included and would like to particularly emphasize the parts of the proposal which address existing businesses, The size, the square footage of businesses on the ground floors, and part of that is because of having observed development on other major corridors, which do allow active use, but because the spaces are only appropriate for corporate or larger uses. in fact remain vacant, turnover rapidly, or are really not used at all in the way that they were intended. So that's the part of the proposal that interests me most as Thank you. I appreciate all the work.

Bye. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Camilla Elvis. Camilla has not joined the Zoom. We're going to go to Sydney Snow, followed by Kathy Hoffman. Sydney, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you all. Good evening. My name is Sydney Snow of 43 Fifth Street just off Cambridge. I'm here to discuss the proposition to amend the zoning map and zoning ordinances in item number three on the table. While I think added residential space would be beneficial to those who live in this corridor, there does not seem to be a guarantee of inclusionary housing projects or other types of affordable housing being mandated in the future with this zoning plan. which is why I would like to suggest that the council allows the amendment to expire and to add language and revisions to the amendment for guaranteed inclusionary housing and or other types of affordable housing in any future projects. My concern is that the inclusionary housing will be avoided in new developments if it is below the 10 unit and 10,000 square foot threshold for inclusionary housing mandates outlined in section 21. Thank you for watching.

Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for joining us. 6-8 months before I plan to move to Cambridge this past year and the housing prices are astronomical I think across the board especially considering the state of a lot of the older housing stock Thank you all for your time. Again, I would urge the council to just put this on hold. And like some other folks have said, just please review it. I also agree with the other comments about kind of reviewing some other parts of the plan it seems like some more specific verbiage would be helpful in a couple different sections so thank you all for your time

Thank you. Our next speaker is Kathy Hoffman, followed by Beryl Lipton, then Max Kaplan. Kathy, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me? We can. Please go ahead. Beautiful. Good snowy evening. I want to begin thanking the city workers out there, making it possible for us to move around and keep our lives sort of on track. With so much blowing up and dividing us around the country, it shows the cooperation and mutual care we really need. It's in that spirit that I'm adding my voice to those asking for the unamended Cambridge Street zoning to expire so we can reorient, stop fighting each other, or putting time into a fraught proposal which has the possibility of heights without benefits or even with benefits which might disappear leaving us with tall as of right heights led by developers. As we see, I also want to mention to the graduate student from MIT, I appreciate your remarks, and that is part of why there has been an ongoing struggle to hold MIT responsible

for housing its graduate students, not putting that burden on the city of Cambridge to build buildings for you. As we see the divides between the haves and have-nots dramatically played out around us, This council should take the time to find solutions to housing, as well as health care, public safety, transit, which benefit the good of the whole while centering those most left out. We don't have to vilify anyone to lift up those most in need in our city and choosing things like social housing, CLTs, or maximum affordability over market rate giveaways for developers. Finally, I just want to mention I'm in support of landmarking the Democracy Center. As someone who was in and out of that building with many hats on over the past 25 years, it was an extraordinary The extraordinary place of vibrancy on the whole breadth of what democracy can mean.

From feeding people to envisioning new ways of being, serving high school students in Cambridge and many others, creating this statute, I think.

My apologies, Kathy. Please email us the remainder of your comment. Our next speaker is Beryl Lipton, followed by Max Kaplan, then Marianne Quinn. Beryl, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Thank you so much. Farrell Lipton, Oak Street. I've spoken with many Cambridge Street people of diverse backgrounds, incomes, and levels of comfort with public testimony. Our concerns about community engagement, planning and details, transparency, our beloved small businesses, environment, history, and vibrancy in the public realm, the love, I and we have expressed all that in good faith. While I've worked and volunteered for nonprofits, I've spent more than a quarter million dollars in rent alone in Cambridge, and I've never owned a car. I'm still trying to make the numbers pencil for my own life. And I respect this place and its people and those who share and want to share this home in the great cultural center that is Cambridge, a place worthy of quality thought. On that note, I want to share that last week, Friends made me aware of an unfortunate blog post by a local commentator featuring images of the Webster-Windsor area regarding this petition and all of Cambridge Street. It stated in part, City Council needs to decide, will it maintain the character of gas stations and tow lots?

I've walked these streets, including Webster, literally thousands of times. Development there is a Camberville issue, and it's wild to encounter such confusion about the character of Cambridge Street we've referenced and suggest that we don't see both room for serious progress and the empty spaces and labs that already exist. This kind of low quality framing of important community issues is crap. And to it I say, miss me with that kind of bad faith BS. I did appreciate hearing interest tonight in some of the same questions we've been asking, and I've truly appreciated the conversations and actual care some of you have shown to me in my neighborhood. I welcome more discussion with anyone interested in Cambridge Street's future, as I'm optimistic that our values are not so different. While I want this particular slipshod petition to expire, I know that it isn't the last word on what happens to Cambridge Street, and I'll be here for those next conversations. The bones here are good, and we should be truly thoughtful about the renovation.

I urge you, counselors, as you move forward with this term and plans for Central Square and sewage and transit in our city, please show us what real consideration and deliberation and quality conversation looks like. Model the local leadership and good governance our city deserves and our country needs. Thank you.

All right, I couldn't unmute there. Our next speaker is Max Kaplan, followed by Marianne Quinn, then Amina Boubacar. Max, you have two minutes. Max, if you can unmute yourself. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Yep. Hi, I'm Max Kaplan, 45 Yerxa Road. If you look at which cities across the country have managed to halt or reverse out of control rent prices, they all have one thing in common. They built more units. I support the Cambridge Street upzoning because we need the housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Marianne Quinn, followed by Amina Boubakar, then Nancy Ryan. Marianne, if you can unmute yourself, please go ahead. You have two minutes.

Hi, it's Marianne Quinn. I live at 29 Otis Street and I would like to comment on the upzoning. So 29 Otis Street is part of the one first complex that takes up the city block of Cambridge and Otis and first and second streets. Our building has more than 400 residents and a six-story complex of buildings situated around a courtyard. We understood that the empty parcel of land directly across Cambridge Street was zoned to become a six-story building with a seventh floor of building utilities such as HVAC. We now understand that the City Council is considering upzoning this lot and allowing a developer to put up a 15-story building. More than double the original footprint. Communication about this potential change was not well disseminated. We only learned about it by chance. A 15-story building would dwarf our building along with the triple-deckers adjacent to this lot and the Glass Factory apartment building across McGrath Highway.

and East Cambridge as a whole, which is mostly two and three story buildings. It is not in keeping with the neighborhood. Residents of the neighborhood recently endured the demolition of the Sullivan Courthouse and the building of Forty Thorndike, a process that went on for months and months. Forty Thorndike has only three occupied floors. The rest of the building is empty. We do not want another large, noisy, disruptive, lengthy construction project. The proposed development has no on-site parking, which will lead to more trouble finding parking and further traffic congestion. which already backs up for blocks during rush hour on Cambridge Street. Finally, a 15-story building will result in a permanent loss of daylight to our apartments as well as to the community roof deck and courtyard. Please vote against this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Amina Boubacar, followed by Nancy Ryan, then Mark Truant. Amina, you have the floor. Please go ahead. Two minutes. Amina, I see you listed as a different name possibly. If you can unmute yourself, you have the floor. Okay, we're going to move on to Nancy Ryan followed by Mark Truitt. Nancy, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, good evening, and thanks for this discussion. I urge you to let this Cambridge Street upzoning petition expire. We do have a housing crisis in Cambridge, but the name of the crisis is affordability. And there is nothing built into this petition that guarantees any kinds of affordability. I just want to note that recently leaders of the so-called YIMBY abundance housing movement in Massachusetts and in Cambridge have been quoted as saying that, essentially, inclusionary zoning gets in the way of development. It's kind of becoming clear that this is not a priority for the intense advocates of the height and density agenda. Let's take a breath.

Let this petition expire and take a look at how Cambridge Street can We can plan Cambridge Street for the future that is genuinely inclusive of low and moderate income earners in particular, but of a broad range of residents. Thanks so much.

Thank you. We already heard from Jerry Puccillo. We're going to go to Mark Truant, followed by Stephen Gardner, then Susan Markowitz. Mark, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Mark Truant. Yep, please go ahead.

Okay. Okay, hi. It's ironic that the longtime home of the Democracy Center was mentioned by a couple of my fellow Cantabrigians earlier this evening because The way that the upzoning along Cambridge Street has been enacted over the past year has been anything but democratic. It is a good example of how our government acts without first understanding the impact of major zoning changes and crafting regulations that will achieve goals without destroying the built environment. The Our Cambridge Street study has been cited by councilors and other supporters of upzoning as a justification for it. For the record, the study stated that in the... that stated that the public in general was okay with an increase in density as long as the additional housing was affordable and sunlight, open space, trees, traffic, and parking were all counted for. so that the character of the neighborhood was respected and strengthened.

The ordinances which have been passed and those proposed are not responsive to the study. Cambridge Street is 65 feet wide. The study itself recognized that increasing building heights on the street beyond four stories would have a negative impact unless buildings were required to have step backs so that sunlight would reach people and trees on the street and the building's massing would be in scale and responsive to the context of the neighborhood. Red Adair, who's Company famously fought oil field fires to bring them under control, said to a client. If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. I respect the desire to increase density and housing, but the ordinances that have been worked on today are works of an amateur. We need to Hold this press, redo all of these ordinances. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Stephen Gardiner, followed by Susan Markowitz, then Deborah Kovar. Stephen, you have two minutes. Stephen, if you can try to admit yourself, you have the floor.

I'm Stephen Gardner. I live at 29 Otis Street. and have spent my career in affordable housing Almost seven years ago, the East Cambridge community was compelled to compromise to allow the redevelopment of the old Sullivan Courthouse into what stands virtually empty today as 40 Thorndyke. The community's compromise allowed this enormous tower to continue to dominate our community, awkwardly contrasted with our residential scale community of triple-deckers, storefronts, and modest mid-rise properties. Thankfully, that compromise included an increase in affordable housing. Most recent developments like CVS, Pharmacy, and buildings along 1st Street have maintained that low-rise profile. With the proposed upzoning of Cambridge Street at Parcel 7, the City of Cambridge

may once again impose an out of scale tower on our community, albeit residential. At the entry point to residential East Cambridge, If allowed to proceed, this tower will stand out as an unwelcoming sore thumb. This site should not be an extension of Cambridge Crossing, rather a welcoming addition to East Cambridge, a reflection of the residential and storefront community boulevard at its beginning. As one first condominium association owner, I could certainly urge the council to reduce the zoning height of Parcel 7 because of its negative impact on our particular community. from congestion at an albeit challenging intersection to unnecessarily blocking sunshine to our complex. that the more compelling argument against this subzoning is the negative impact that such a sore thumb would have on our entire community.

I oppose the proposed upzoning of parcel 7 and urge the council to allow the petition to expire. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Susan Markowitz, followed by Deborah Kovar, then Sophia Sanchez. We have about 11 speakers left for those who are waiting. Susan, you have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Thank you to Patty Nolan and Sumbul Siddiqui for your recent amendments. This is a compromise and I really appreciate it. I still say though, let the petition expire because the overwhelming majority of people in the community do not know that this petition exists. This morning when I was shoveling, I spoke to my next door neighbor and a neighbor across the street, both of whom I met for the first time. Neither of them knew anything about the petition. One responded, that's horrible. How did you find out about this? The other one who moved in in September said, oh no, there go my favorite shops down the street. When is this going to happen? I really don't understand why it's not important for residents to be notified about this petition. Most people do not go to or read the city council meetings. They have not been informed about the major changes that you're planning in contrast to the Cambridge Street Study.

We've suggested a two-month democratic community process to give people a chance to hear what and why you were proposing this position. They would get a chance to be heard. the outstanding issues could that we could discuss could include the amount of inclusionary housing that will be generated because it's not known and it's likely small the in the need for increased project review Labs that are currently as of right, increasing step backs, increasing open space, increased street trees, increased protections for small first floor businesses. You've said the petition as amended needs to be passed now. in order to move on to Central Square. Really? Is this how you're going to treat the residents in Central Square? What is the rush? If you think that this is what Cambridge Street needs, engage us in a legitimate two-month community process. We'll ask some questions, express what we like, and you can do the same. Please.

do not shortchange us this will renew our trust and faith in you thank you

Thank you. Our next speaker is Deborah Kovar, followed by Sophia Sanchez, then Kieran Vaya.

I really think you nailed it.

I don't. Debra, if you can please unmute yourself, you have the floor.

Can you hear me now? We can, please go ahead. Great. I'm Deborah Kovar and I'm an owner at One First Condominium at 150 Cambridge Street. I'm here tonight to address policy number three. and to ask the City Council to oppose the upzoning proposal to a 15-story building along Cambridge Street while I support responsible development, and the six to eight story building proposed, the 15 story building without parking will contribute to a heavily congested area. Cohesion with surrounding structures would be best served by a six to eight story structure, which also makes provisions for parking. This would also maintain and respect the well-vetted process that was previously undertaken for zoning to allow a six to eight story building. Please vote no to upzoning along the Cambridge corridor. No on policy number three.

Thank you for your time.

Our next speaker is Sophia Sanchez, then Kiran Vaya, followed by Ann Coburn. Sophia? I don't see Sophia on the Zoom. We will go to Karen Vaya. Karen, two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, I live in one first, Cambridge, which overlooks this parking, the space, which was the erstwhile Bleachmere Station. and I urge the city council members to oppose the upzoning for converting this previously approved six-story building into a proposed 15-story building like the rest of them before me have mentioned. The reduction in sunlight, which is going to force us to turn our lights on during the day, increasing our electricity bills. No requirement for parking increases the traffic, which is almost beginning to be a nightmare already. There's already Forty Thorn Dike, which we see very scarcely occupied. So is there really a requirement for more housing when we can't fill in what exists already? and this totally changes the look and feel of Cambridge Street where we've lived for almost 15 years now.

That said, apart from the fact that the burden is going to fall on the rest of us who've been living here and serving this community and contributing to this community, It's also not going to provide a good quality of life for people living in this new building with no parking, with congested areas, no grocery stores in walkable distance, which means everybody will have to have a car or some public transportation or Ubers. It's going to convert this whole street and area into extremely unlivable surroundings. So in the name of affordable housing, is this what we are providing to the folks who who would want to come and live in these buildings. So I respectfully urge you to please let this expire, rethink how this gels with the Cambridge street community and not necessarily the Cambridge crossing community, which is completely different while it's just across the street.

And I do appreciate all the hard work that's being done in this, but respectfully urge to please reconsider this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Jamie Haag. Jamie, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Jamie? Sorry, Jamie, if you can try to unmute yourself again.

Oh, sure. Yep, go ahead. Thank you. My name is Jamie Hage, and... My wife and I live at 17 Otis Street in Cambridge at 1 First and like many of the other speakers have said, we oppose the proposed upzoning petition, especially as it pertains to the development of the parcel across the street. from one first as either parcels six or seven, the former Lechmere Station site. to construct up to 15 stories that is completely out of character with the character of the rest of the neighboring property. It will affect will all be in the area and will not

will not be designed or developed for affordable housing. A 15-story complex, as I understand, this is being proposed as a... as a benefit for a particular developer who is interested in developing high end residential housing and just increasing profit but it's going to affect the Cambridge community as a whole to have this high density high rise in in this area and we strongly oppose it and ask the council to let this expire and revisit this upzoning petition on another day. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Anne Coburn, followed by John Gagliardi, then James Williamson. Anne, you have the floor. Two minutes. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Anne Coburn. I live at 117A Oak Street. Cambridge, tonight I am speaking to urge that the city council pass tabled motion number three to allow the Cambridge Street rezoning petition to move forward. I usually urge elected officials to do things because it's Thank you for watching! Tonight, while this is the right thing to do, I'm also going to mention that I believe that passing this motion is a necessary first step to diversifying the size and number of businesses in Cambridge. by revisiting the ground floor commercial requirements in the future. For at least the last two decades, Cambridge has relied on a restrictive economic monoculture of biotech and academics. The city's available commercial and housing spaces speak to that economic framework.

Well-funded, venture capital-backed businesses or universities with massive endowments versus the ability to create... The capacity for small businesses to grow more gradually and more sustainably. But now the real-life, concrete, and long-term effects of the Trump administration's assault on those kinds of industries deeply affects the city of Cambridge's current property tax revenue sources. I believe that by passing this motion, the city of Cambridge may be positioned to cultivate more small to medium-sized industries and more space to welcome new ideas, new businesses, and new residents, residents who can actually afford to live here. because I think that this city needs that kind of energy, hope, and movement.

Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is... John Gagliardi, followed by James Williamson, then Ed Henley. John, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead. John, you're unmuted. All right, we're not getting any sound from John. We're going to move on to James Williamson, followed by Ed Henley, then Jose Estrella. James, you have the floor. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Can you hear me?

We can.

That's probably Estrella. But anyway, thank you. I want to talk first about the Cambridge Street upzoning proposal. I learned for the first time tonight, listening to some people on Otis Street in the Lechmere area, about this idea of the proposal for a major development in excess of what they Their previous understanding had been. I think what we need to know among other things before anything gets passed is when developers go in and have private meetings are we entitled to know what the details are of those conversations? I'm not necessarily against city staff talking to developers, but I think we who live here have a right to know what transpires in those conversations.

Are staff making deals privately to accommodate developers and we're not told about it? And now we have to hear about it at a city council meeting. I do think there are a lot of problems with this Cambridge Street proposal. It seems like a real mess the more I listen to other speakers. By the way, MIT, there was a time when the Graduate Student Council there demanded that MIT house all of their graduate students on land they already own in attractive housing at affordable prices. But anyway, I want to say a word about the Stickney landmark petition. I think it's flawed and I don't think you should pass it. It did remind me of the addition, the East...

Thank you very much. And it seems like a sellout, so I hope you don't pass it.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Ed Henley, followed by Jose Estrella. Ed, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Ed Henley, if you can unmute yourself, you have the floor. Yep, there you go.

My name is Ed Henley. I live at 237 Franklin Street Manning Apartments Senior Housing. I'm a member of the Cambridge Somerville Chapter of the Mass Senior Action Council. Speaking on table item number three. I'm speaking to let the upzoning petition lapse and be redone in a secure fashion that will allow homes for new housing and for everyday and especially lower income residents to live in and live in over the course of a lifetime, especially if they are raising a family. Community in Cambridge is everything. It is that community of people that wants affordable housing, but wants it including the ability to drive, Parkinshaw, Attain Medical Services and Medical Goods, those kinds of things locally. Locally is where we spend the majority of our incomes, whether that's from our retirement income, from work,

or from renting apartments that some people have worked for a lifetime to own and to rent, people to own their own homes. I can personally name small family-owned businesses and they probably own the actual building as well as opposed to renting on Cambridge Street as well as Inman Square which regularly makes the the which I regularly make the rounds of when I'm shopping. Typically it'll do a medical appointment and then stop in a couple places on Cambridge Street, a couple places in Inman Square. Please do not change Cambridge in such that a way that large mega moguls own large development property and constantly test tenants' ability to pay

with outrageous rent increases in whatever added costs they can add to that tenant's Thank you very much. consistently in their children's schooling as well as ability to get around the community. Please don't put these community features at risk. I guess that please do the right thing the right way for the right reason. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We are going to skip Jose as he has not joined. We will go to Kathleen Higgins followed by Heather Hoffman. Kathleen. You have two minutes. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Kathy Higgins. I live at 345 Norfolk Street, a few houses in from Cambridge Street and Inman Square. I strongly support acting favorably on the Cambridge Street petition. to change zoning to allow for more homes. I also lived for many years at Inman Square Apartments and can only hope that more buildings like this can be built with this zoning and thus add to the vibrancy of Cambridge Street. I experienced the wonderful caring people who lived in the Minskor apartments who created a community of support despite, yes, challenges. If HRI working with the residents had not preserved the approximately 100 apartments as affordable, many people who found a home there would have had to leave Cambridge. We need a wide range of housing tools and more of all types of housing built. Of course, we should do all we can to increase deeply affordable housing, and the possibility of social housing being developed in Cambridge is an exciting new type.

But we also need to provide options for those in the affordably ranges that qualify for 100% affordable housing that just a start in HRI build, as well as those who don't qualify for these. or inclusionary units, but who may be paying exorbitant rents, 50% of their income in rent. As others have said, the zoning for more housing represents another step It is part of undoing a sad history of exclusionary and racist zoning. If a compromise will result in attaining the ability to build denser and taller near such areas as Webster, then that should be that should be rezoned for housing, then I would support that rather than see the petition die. We don't need more process. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Heather Hoffman. Heather, you have two minutes. Please go ahead. Hello, Heather Hoffman, 213 Hurley Street.

I'd like to start off with the court cases once again, and I would just love to hear how the inclusionary zoning case is doing and whether you actually got the answer in today. along with the three new lawyers. With respect to pedestrianization, I would love it if this city thought that pedestrians were worth anything and did anything to make it so we could get around better. Look at how you set up construction and what you want is construction everywhere all the time. And pedestrians, just get shunted from one side of the street to the other if they're lucky. With respect to the Cambridge street zoning, I hate to be the bearer of bad news. but there is as someone said before me absolutely nothing in this zoning to expect that you will build anything affordable.

This is simply a giveaway to developers. And I understand that that is the way Cambridge does things. Take a look at what's being built now, such as it is. People are regularly avoiding providing a single inclusionary apartment. They will build bigger, they'll make more money, and there will be nothing affordable to it. I will also note as... was noted before me that there doesn't seem to be a zoning map or a description anywhere in the packet. And I'm just wondering if you guys are too Overworked at CDD to get your act together or what?

Because I have not seen such screw-ups in the past. just on a regular basis. So please let it last. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, that is all that we're signed up to speak.

Thank you, Naomi, for leading us through public comment. And that concludes public comment on a Motion by Councilor Simmons to close public comment. We'll do a roll call. Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem. Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Public comment is now closed. There's no submission of the record. There are no reconsiderations. So we'll move on to city managers. Agenda. I had polled counselors on items that they'd like to poll. So what I'm going to do to make it Thank you so much. will do a motion on the balance. And then I'll sign particular counselors to the ones that they had pulled. And when we get to each item, I'll ask for you to raise your hands When after the counselor has spoken, you have additional questions.

Well, poll number one, and then number three was pulled by Councilor Zusy, and number four was also pulled by Councilor Zusy. We have number five that was pulled by Councilor Nolan. We have number seven that was pulled by Councilor Simmons. And then we have City Manager Agenda Item Number 10. That was pulled by Councilor Zusy. And then finally we have City Manager Agenda Item Number 11 that was pulled by Councilor Nolan. After we have disposed of the city manager's agenda, we do have a late city manager's. Agenda, and I'll come to the motion at that time, along with some of the other motions we'll have to do. So for the record, we've pulled number one, number three, number four, number five, number seven. Number 10 and 11.

Are there any in addition to this my colleagues would like to pull? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and do a roll call on city manager agenda item number two, six, eight, nine, please.

Al-Zubi, Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem, Yes, Councilor Flaherty, Yes, Councilor McGovern, Yes, Councilor Nolan, Yes, Councilor Simmons, Yes, Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The balance is adopted. We'll go to city manager agenda item number one, which is a communication transmitted from Ian Huang, city manager, relative to a federal update, including an update on relevant court cases. City manager, you have the floor. I can't hear you, we can't hear you It's just not me, right? People can't hear City Manager?

How's that? Is that better? Great, great. Perfect. Okay, good. We're in business. Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I wanted to provide an update on all that's been happening on ICE enforcement across the country and how we are both responding and preparing in our own community. We have held cross-departmental meetings to discuss immigration surges that we are seeing, particularly in Minnesota and Maine. and to review preparations for a potential surge in the Greater Boston area. We've also begun meeting across the 17 Metro Mayors communities in Greater Boston on sharing practices and coordinating responses across the region. Within Cambridge, we've taken a number of city actions over the last year, including holding Know Your Rights trainings in partnership with MIRA and the State Office for Refugees and Immigrants,

Distribution of red cards in multiple languages to help people assert their constitutional rights in difficult situations, providing education and information on family preparedness, continuing to talk closely and partner where we can with local organizations like Luce, Bijan, DeNovo, and Greater Boston Legal Services. We've provided funding for DeNovo to provide legal assistance to low-income families and hosted a monthly legal clinic. And thank you as well to the City Council for the work to strengthen our Welcoming Communities Ordinance which includes specific reporting requirements for ICE actions in the City at regular intervals. We've also transitioned mixed-status families from federal to municipal housing vouchers to avoid the impact of changing HUD policies and potential data sharing with ICE. We provided training and protocols to frontline city staff on what to do if ICE shows up Demarcating public versus private spaces in city buildings and establishing a hotline for city staff.

to reach out to the law department during business hours to review any potential administrative or judicial warrants that are being presented by ICE agents. And finally, we've taken significant legal action where we can. Related to immigration and ICE, the city is a plaintiff in two cases and filed nine amicus briefs and litigations related to immigration enforcement and actions. So this is a growing list. I'm really appreciative. for counselors and people in our community who continue to bring us great ideas. And in particular, thank you to Carolina Almonte and the work that the Commission on Immigrant Rights and Citizenship has been doing in this space. continue to be in contact with Carolina and the Commission. Give us those ideas. We're excited to assess new things that we can be doing and how we can support our community in this time. Alex Preddy

who contrary to federal statements seems from video footage to have clearly been restrained by multiple agents when he was shot and killed. I know that many of us have been so deeply disturbed, and as co-chairs of Metro Mayors, Mayor Brianna Lungelkern of Medford and I released a statement decrying the ice occupation that we are seeing in Minnesota and Maine. We note that an occupying force does not belong in our communities or anywhere in the United States of America and that these unconstitutional and unnecessary actions are making us less safe. The City of Cambridge also has filed an amicus brief in the Minnesota v. Nome litigation that held a hearing earlier today. which requested an injunction on the icers that has caused so much harm in Minneapolis. The judge did not rule today from the bench but promised that, quote, if I had a burner in front of the front burner, this would be on it. and that a decision would come quickly.

While the judge was critical of the federal government's intent for the surge, as well as the long list of troubling actions, she also appeared skeptical Thank you for joining us. It's being built on the coercive nature of the ICE surge, that this occupation and the aggressiveness of federal actions are part of a desire not to actually address immigration challenges, but to pressure the state to act differently, which is an unconstitutional use of federal power to coerce state action. In this line of argument, the court is being asked not to focus on a, quote, line by line, person by person analysis or oversight of DHS operations, how many agents are too many, what the right practice should be, but rather, that the act itself is illegitimate by its intent.

We'll keep the city council updated, but this line of argument feels relevant because it's a similar pattern that we're litigating in other cases where the federal government is seeking to, for instance, withhold funds to coerce cities toward policy changes that are irrelevant to the program goals of that funding. So I think there's still ultimately a lot to be understood in terms of where that court ruling will land. And even as we speak, I think decisions are being made. But just know that we are certainly wanting to continue to be in close conversation with this city council, with our community about how we're preparing actions that we can take and following and supporting communities around the country that are struggling with what the federal government is doing. I also wanted to touch on the potential for a federal government shutdown after the upcoming deadline, which is the end of day this Friday, January 30th. We've been watching that deadline since the government reopened in the fall.

At this point, it appears clear that Democrats in the Senate are unlikely to vote for funding packages that include more budget for the Department of Homeland Security and ICE without some reform, which may threaten the passage of these bills before the deadline. I think it's hard to know exactly how the next four days will unfold and there isn't a lot of time for them to figure out How to get all of these bills passed. The remaining agencies that need to be funded include the departments of defense, labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. This represents about, I believe, 75% of the government's annual spending. And I think I would say as we experienced during the last recent shutdown, it will take some time to better understand even after the government shuts down when appropriations run out and where there may be an impact that filters to states and cities.

So we'll keep watching developments and we can provide a fuller update with more information in two weeks when we meet on Monday, February 9th. But just know that we're definitely in touch to try and figure out how this might affect our community. and ultimately the programs that we're running. A final update just in terms of things that are happening that the council and the community may be thinking about in the next couple of weeks. A number of people in our community are very concerned over the expiration of temporary protected status for Haitians. That expires next Tuesday, February the 3rd. There is a court decision that is scheduled to be made the day before next Monday, February the 2nd, and it may be possible that an injunction or an extension may be issued. Certainly, the judge during a prior hearing was skeptical that the federal government had sufficiently reviewed whether conditions on the ground in Haiti had improved.

Apparently, the only evidence of an actual review being conducted was a one-sentence email sent about an hour Thank you so much for joining us. that even without temporary protected status, people who are in some pending asylum case would have legal protection. But given what we're seeing around the country, it's also clear that ICE is picking people up, detaining folks and putting people into deportation proceedings beyond, I think, what we have understood. Thank you so much for joining us.

I would really continue to encourage folks who are in these complicated statuses to be in touch with an immigration lawyer we are trying to provide resources so that anybody can get in touch with an immigration lawyer and have their case worked on. But this is a tough time and really my heart is with everybody that's in these tough situations. So I think those are the major updates, things that we have been tracking and watching and that will unfold over the next two weeks. And very open to questions or comments from the council. So thank you all.

Yes, thank you, City Manager. And, you know, as has been mentioned, you know, these are really challenging times and sometimes it feels like we There are more questions than answers and as much information we can provide the community, the better. I know my colleagues and I have all thought about and are asked about how we can even strengthen What we have now and I think in the weeks to come, I know that this council will prioritize that and prioritize whatever we can do to get more clarity, get more answers and and strengthen what we already have. So thank you for the update. I know my colleagues must have questions. So I will ask that you raise your hand and I will then call on you in turn. And the raise hand feature is at the end in the bottom of the screen. I'll go to Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yeah, hey, just want to say thank you for addressing the ways that our city is trying to be active about protecting our residents. It'd be great to get a list of the resources and opportunities that you noted here. And I also just want to also acknowledge the pain that you noted with the recent killings by ICE. I will personally be continuing to work on an assessment of our welcoming city ordinance, similar to what Mayor Siddiqui noted. to ensure that our federal administration knows that when they are blurring the lines on who is what that we will be moving to ensure that we are as explicit as possible in non-cooperation. I'll yield. No questions there.

Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I just note that the Ninth Circuit is a problematic circuit, and we just had a big win there in one of the amicus briefs that the city of Cambridge filed. So congratulations to that. I've got a thought. on our response to unlawful detention for residents of the city of Cambridge and maybe You know, if the city solicitor and the city manager is interested in establishing a volunteer network of lawyers Maybe 30 or 40 or 50 lawyers in the city of Cambridge. Everybody could take a day and be the on-call lawyer. If somebody is detained, if there's a surge in Cambridge, then we have a person who's identified for that day. to go and file a habeas corpus petition in the federal court so the body's not removed because we're seeing this everywhere.

Just a thought, and we could talk about it, but I congratulate the city on its efforts. and let's keep it up. Thank you so much.

I have Councilor Nolan.

Thank you. Mayor, and thank you City Manager, and thank you my colleagues. I do have a question on, it's a sensitive area to know, How many of our residents are in temporary protected status? But as the city manager referenced, one of the most, I think, horrifying things that has been happening is that this particular federal administration is literally taking people even at the very point of when they are about to get their citizenship. They are not only ignoring the fact that so many are here legally seeking asylum but even when they've gone through the entire process followed every single rule and are about to finalize it they have had no qualms about it. picking up people and detaining them unlawfully.

Do we have standing if it is, and I realize this is a question I'm throwing out, would we have standing as a city if a resident is illegally detained to then sue the federal government back? Is that one of the tools in our toolkit that we would be able to use. I mean, one of the things that since they have no qualms at all about breaking the law, the question is, can we as a city actually have standing? I'm just curious. And if we don't know, then I'll just... and I think the other related question is do we have a sense of how many families, as Councilor Al-Zubi said, getting information out to the community to make sure all the families know what their options are and as Councilor Flaherty said, if we could Make sure that any residents have access to perhaps some pro bono lawyers to help. Do we have any sense of how many residents this TPS affects?

I have solicitor of error.

Thank you and through you, Madam Mayor. Just to the question on whether the city would have standing. Unfortunately, I don't think the city would have standing. In that instance where there's an individual who's unlawfully detained, but I hear the points that several of you have raised on looking at volunteer attorney services. We do already fund the de novo immigrant clinic and look for volunteer attorneys to help that clinic that's obviously not a daily service it's um once a month, I believe, answering questions and then also connecting clinic participants with ongoing legal support. But I think we will be continuing to look at ways we can partner with our legal service providers and partner with volunteer attorneys and see if there's any

other programs that the city can be part of to help get the necessary legal services out to the immigrants.

And then Councilor Nolan, your second question around the number.

Right. Do we have any sense of that?

I'm sure that maybe city manager, maybe we can look into that.

Yeah, we can look into it.

Yeah. And then Mayor Siddiqui, I would just remind all of us that as we move forward, our welcoming ordinance is quite strong. We can always look at it to see if we can improve it. The other thing we need to remember is that we need to insist on our rights if there are laws broken in our city to make sure we will be the ones to ensure that they are Thank you for joining us. if I assault someone on the street our law enforcement officers rightfully so will be in charge of Adjudicating that and looking at it.

And if an ICE officer assaults someone, which we have seen happen time and time and time again across the country, we need to make sure that we can hold them accountable. We will not interfere with the federal immigration work. However, when our own laws are broken, I think we need to proactively think about how do we ensure that our law enforcement can enforce law and order when the laws are being broken by federal officials. So I'm not sure that's an answerable question, but I do want to raise it now because we have certainly seen it and clearly it will come up at some point here because they will be after us given particularly our status as a as a city that stands strong.

We'll go to Councilor McGovern.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. Mr. Manager, can you just remind us that reports that we get from the Police Department on ICE activity in the city, those are what, every three months? How often do we get those?

I thought it might have been every, it's either every three months, every quarter, or every six months. I'll check. And I think we had one fairly recently in the fall.

Go quick. I would just maybe recommend this, especially if we're looking at there's going to be a potential surge that maybe we get those reports more frequently. I think people, as much as we can communicate with folks in the community about what Thank you so much for joining us. But again, everyone is so anxious and so on edge that the more information we can provide, I think going four months or longer to give people information is probably too long given I think that would be helpful.

City Manager There has not been a significant amount of ICE detentions within the city of Cambridge, but certainly I think our understanding is there's been more activity McGovern, and of course, we are very much watching for if there would be any indication that there's going to be some sort of a surge or an uptick. So appreciate that thought, Councilor McGovern.

Other questions, comments from the City Council on this? Seeing none, we'll be in touch with you, City Manager. on other items. So on a motion by Councilor Simmons to place city manager agenda number one on file, we'll do a roll call. Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes, Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes, Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

City Manager Agenda Item 1 is placed on file. We'll move on to City Manager Agenda Item 3. This is Transmitted Communication from Ian Huang, City Manager. relative to the appropriation of $100,000 received from the Massachusetts School Building Authority to the Public Investment Fund School Extraordinary Expenditures Account to fund the feasibility study and Schemic Design Costs for the Roof Replacement Project at the Cambridgeport School located at 89 Elm Street. Councilor Zusy, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I think it's great we got this grant. I just wondered why a feasibility study or whether a feasibility study and a design is needed for roofing I know a school is more complicated than a house, but wouldn't a good roofer be able to come up with... with a plan and not need $100,000 for feasibility study and a formal design. So that's a question through you, Mayor Siddiqui, for the city manager.

So we have a bunch of school staff here, so we'll go to Lidad.

Sure, thank you, Madam Mayor. Hi, my name is Vidat Koncic. I'm a Director of Facilities for Cambridge Public Schools. I'm not sure if you can see me. You cannot, but you can hear me, right? Yes. OK, excellent. So I just want to explain, you know, Massachusetts school building authority process. So in order to get in their program for accelerated repair, which is for replacement of roofs, boilers, and windows. We need to submit the statement of interest last year around this time. After that, we get invited. If we are selected based on criteria that they have, which is usually the age

and you know condition of the roof or the boiler or the window you get invited to do a feasibility study or a schematic design to see if we qualify for being accepted into their program. We finance the entire cost of the project. And once the project is completed, we are reimbursed a certain rate. which is roughly between 30 and 40 percent of cost of the project these are MSBA requirements. They require us to do a feasibility study. They also, if we are selected to go forward with the process, they will assign us A designer and the owner's project manager who's going to oversee the project. That's their process. Those are their rules. We've completed several projects with them in the past.

It is definitely, you know, something if we were doing it on our own, which we are right now, we're in the midst of replacing a roof at Longfellow Broadway. We would hire an architect ourselves. This just requires these roofs are a little bit more complex. There's a lot to go into. There's a lot of curves. you know a lot of things up on a roof is not just a kind of like a flat roof that can easily be done so there's definitely some design that goes into it and we also need a design to go out to bid through competitive bidding so that roofing contractor know what they're bidding on, what the condition of Zuzi.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much again through you, Mayor Siddiqui. That's really helpful, Mr. Kondzik. And so we're not guaranteed of the... Funding from the state or partial funding for the repair of the roof, but it sounds like it's likely if we follow this procedure. Is that right?

Yes, that is correct.

Yeah, anyway, sounds great. And I thank you very much for making this happen. I yield.

Of course, thank you.

Do my colleagues have any other questions on this? Thank you to the school staff who joined. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and do on a motion by Councilor Zusy a roll call on the appropriation and placing city manager agenda item number three on file.

Councilor Al-Zubi? Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

We have placed the item on file. The money has been appropriated. We'll move on to city manager agenda item number four. This is transmitting a communication from Ian Huang, city manager relative, Zusy, you have the floor.

Thank you so much, Mayor Siddiqui. I just wanted to hear more about this because it sounded very mysterious to me. How long is the term? What is the function of the public weighers? I've never heard of a public weigher. What are their qualifications? Are they paid? And I was looking at 500 Front Street. It looks like it's very close to MIT. Is it right beside MIT? I've never noted a scale there. So I'm just eager to learn more about this through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I guess, too. Deputy City Manager Kathy Watkins.

Hi, through you, Madam Mayor. I think we are having some technical difficulties. So ISD is trying to log on. who would be the best people to answer these questions. And so I genuinely apologize. So I know Peter was trying to log on We may have to get back to you on some of these questions. I see Anthony.

Sorry about that.

Oh, perfect. Thank you, Anthony. I'm like trying to do it. Thank you. Anthony is here. We're good hands.

Sure. Thank you, Councilor, for that question. Through you, Madam Mayor, public way is in Massachusetts, cities and towns swear in public ways for businesses to ensure accuracy and fairness with the state consumer protection laws. of sale of goods and weights and measures. This practice is mandated by Mass General Law, Chapter 41, Section 85. which requires mayors and city councils to appoint weighers upon request to verify accuracy of commodities, particularly in heavy materials like stone and sand. What it is, is Boston Sand and Gravel sells such large volumes of goods that these public wares are sworn in to certify that the goods that they sell weighed according to law.

They do go through a quarterly third-party inspection, and we do join them once a year on that third-party inspection. And Sean Freund is our inspector who does that, is online also. I think one of your questions was, do they get paid? They get paid by Boston Sand and Gravel, not by us. And it's just a safeguard against public fraud and carelessness. Yeah, through you, Mayor Siddiqui.

So if I wanted to be a public way or what sort of credentials would I need to have?

Well, through you, Madam Mayor, first you would work for the company that you're being sworn into. We have a weights and measures department that's through inspectional services. We do all of the smaller scales. This particular business does such large volumes, we don't have the equipment required. to do this. A lot of cities and towns in Massachusetts that have this type of business do swear in public ways.

So are they, so is it, are they like civil and so mostly it's a check and balance system it sounds like. So you just, you need a reliable, honest person. might have some mechanical ability that would check the scales. Is that it? I mean, why? So why would why would we need like nine of those people? Because do they take turns or

Through you, Madam Mayor. Councilor, yes, I think they all work in different shifts in different capacities at Boston Sand and Gravel. Whether it's what they're selling or what they're weighing, what materials are going out. So different people.

Okay, I'm just absolutely fascinated. I've never heard of this career occupation, and thank you for telling me about it. Thank you, I yield. Councilor Simmons.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just kind of following up behind Councilor Zusy, and I want to thank her for raising these questions because As I was reading through the agenda and came to this particular item, one thought I had was I wonder how many members actually know what these folks do. Some of us do have been around for a while. Some of us might have known and didn't remember. And so I raise this and support my colleague and her queries. So I don't have any objections or concerns. But I do want to point out that the city manager should Be better about providing information, a sentence or two that says, you know, weights and measures, and this is what the person does because everyone doesn't know, including the people that might be viewing in. So we're not only edifying. So who are these people that they're appointing? What do they do? What are they for? The other thing that we don't know, we don't know who they are.

We don't know why they're qualified for these roles. or even what the roles are so thank you again I just want to acknowledge my colleague for for raising that and I just think as we go forward we it would be helpful to have some consistency across the appointments of boards and commissions and quasi-employees, if you will, because I don't know what really to identify these individuals as, but having some consistency on the communication and the and the information that we render on these appointments that we're supposed to approve. The information, the context that we're getting is in the record and that anyone has access to it. And I think it's better for us as counselors that we know who and what we're voting to approve. So with that, I yield the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Simmons. Any other questions on this? Hearing none. Clerk Crane, did you have your hand up?

I did. I just wanted to add that these terms are usually for one year. The city clerk's office goes out on site yearly and swizz these public weighers in. I know that was a question.

Thank you, clerk. And to folks' points, I think, you know, there's a way we can get some more information about what public wares are so that it's on the record. Seeing no one else, on a motion by Councilor Zusy to approve the appointments, and place city manager agenda item number four on file. We'll do a roll call. Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes, Councilor Nolan.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The appointments have been approved and city manager agenda item four is placed on file. We're moving on to city manager agenda item number five. Transmitting communication from Ian Huang, City Manager, relative to the appointment or reappointment of the following people to the Recycling Advisory Committee for terms of three years. Councilor Nolan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. Very excited to see this on the agenda. And the reason I pulled it is I do have a question on how the appointments were made and the process by which both the reappointments and the new members. It's great that while there's a total of nine that are It can be as many as 20 or 24. So this last term we spent a lot of time working to make updates to the Zero Waste Master Plan and There's been many, many discussions around how it is that we can improve all of the city operations related to recycling. And part of that initiative around the changes, we're making more aggressive benchmarks, ordinance changes to reduce waste, take the first steps for the first time towards a single-use plastic ban to make it more widely available since that is something that is public health Consequences as well as environmental consequences as well as emission pollution consequences. So the question is when you were interviewing candidates, was there an explicit look at candidates who were inclined to advocate for strong improvements in waste reduction?

and or additionally specifically looking for candidates who would help oversight of existing and future city practices. I just want to make sure candidates for these boards and commissions and this is just one of them as we go through them there'll be a lot more boards and commissions are not only dedicated residents, but really able to help us perform a very critical role in oversight and management, not just giving input or hearing about plans of the city, but to actually be able to inform, develop, create, and push the city to be the best that it can be in these areas. And particularly for this advisory committee, I think it's a critically important role so that we can have a successful implementation of the Zero Waste Master Plan. We're already behind on a couple of the ideas that were supposed to be promulgated up by now. So I'm just really wanting to understand how the process included that

somewhat expanded vision for what our zero-waste master plan will bring to the city and this RAC will be key to that.

We'll go to the Deputy City Manager.

Thank you. Through Mayor Siddiqui, So, and I think they were trying to get promoted. Hopefully they did. We have Jennifer Matthews, who's the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, and Michael Orr, who's the Recycling Director, who I will turn it over to that can talk about, respond to your questions, Councilor Nolan.

Hi, this is Mike Gore through you, Madam Mayor. So the interview process was, first of all, we look at how many people applied. We look at geographic diversity of applicants. We want to just make sure we have a well-rounded group of people on the committee. But then we do look at specific qualifications. We have one candidate who was a chief communications officer and has a lot of insight as to how to communicate around zero waste or things in the climate realm. But then we also have different kind of candidates that are maybe newer to the zero waste kind of lifestyle, for lack of a better word. that can offer different insights. So we like to balance different ages, different backgrounds, different parts of the city, people that are in the industry and some people that are not in the industry. So we have

A representative from Harvard and MIT that are both in the zero waste kind of like their job descriptions category. Fully covered the zero waste initiatives. And then we have people that have worked in industry as plastics manufacturers or different kind of individuals in circularity things. I think we have a pretty well-rounded group here. It is a relatively large advisory committee, but we do like giving a lot of different people insight when we have so many applicants that are volunteering for a voluntary committee. We like to give them the opportunity.

One thing I would add to that through Madam Mayor, Councilor Nolan, we are in the process of finalizing draft ordinance changes to affect the changes that were anticipated in the Zero Waste Master Plan 2.0. and one of the changes that we will be proposing that I think is consistent with some of the issues you've raised is changing the name of the recycling advisory committee to the waste reduction advisory Thank you. Thank you. the varied ways that this group will be helping to advise on zero waste initiatives.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Deacon. Thank you, Michael and Jennifer. That's Terrific. It wasn't really responsive to the question though. The question really was as we were recruiting and talking to these people was it very clear that oversight monitoring not just being told what the issues are not just communicating the issues but actually taking a much more intentional Thank you so much for joining us. This committee, again, like as I've said with many of our other committees, let's really make use of the volunteers in the community who are very interested in this. So my question is, was that part of the interview process to let them know that they

Thank you so much for joining us. Food waste, you know, and terminology matters, as you know, we fought really hard to have it be food waste, not compost. However, there's so many other things we really need to work on if we're going to meet our goals that I'm just curious, again, in this interview process, whether that was part of the process. The approach to ensure that people coming on are going to be the types of people not only capable of creating and giving input because that's our job is then to listen to them but also have an attitude that you know to push the city to really do all we can because that's what we all need and hopefully want from from these boards and commissions if that makes sense as a question I just want to Be very clear about that part of the question.

Sure, through you, Madam Mayor. You know, we did talk extensively about how we do have a new Zero Waste Master Plan, and we do want this committee to have a lot of I think that's something that we can continue to work on is kind of like on our monthly meetings and even in between meetings just trying to figure out like how to empower the committee as much as possible to like help push us along to meeting these goals I mean it's It is a little bit tricky, I mean, because, you know, there's a lot of people that are coming from different backgrounds and they may not fully understand everything in the waste world or like the operations, but... As we start getting more versed and as we get a lot of these new candidates interested and more involved in DPW, it'll help kind of bring out, I think, a better... kind of opportunity for them to nudge us along. And so that's something that we can definitely look a lot more closely at.

Great, thank you. And again, this is going to be true for all boards and commissioners. I think that we're going to be doing our job better. If we take advantage and really use these boards and commissions, and particularly in this area, I think it's going to be critically important. As you know, this is a great plan, and yet it could have been even more aggressive. And, you know, the timeline is we really need to meet these timelines so that we can get on to a zero waste master plan. DCM. Watkins may not like to hear this, but I'm already thinking of zero-waste master plan 3.0 once we get through this. So thank you. With that, Mayor Siddiqui, I yield. I will be approving these. There's a terrific array of people, and I and I do hope they hear the message and the staff hears the message that would really love to have this group be part of the solution to so many of these issues that are critically important for the city moving forward. Thank you, I yield.

Councilor Nolan yields. Don't see any other questions on this item. So on a motion by Councilor Nolan to approve The appointments and place city manager agenda item number five on file. We'll do a roll call, please. Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons? Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes, Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The appointments are approved and city manager agenda item number five is placed on file. We are moving on to City Manager Agenda Item 7. Transmitting communication from Ian Huang, City Manager, relative to the appropriation of $226,000. $880 from the Emergency Solutions Grant to the Grant Fund Human Services salary and wages and other ordinary maintenance accounts. Councilor Simmons, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tonight we're authorizing the $226,880 in emergency solutions grant funding. And every dollar of this allocation is directed toward Homeless Assistance and Shelter Operations, Central Services, Banquet Point Housing, and Homelessness Prevention. And so this is not discretionary spending. It is core to how we meet our obligations to some of our most vulnerable residents. and the city. But at the same time, I think it's important to be candid. Over the past several years, this council and the city has encountered some troubling concerns related to the experiences of people utilizing some of our local shelters. Those concerns have come from residents, advocates, and service users themselves. They range from safety issues to dignity and respect to how complaints are received and addressed.

And so while the city does not directly operate these shelters, we are not without responsibility. From my point of view, when public dollars are being invested, especially federal dollars entrusted to us, those funds must come with close, clear expectations. So for me, oversight cannot be symbolic. Accountability cannot be cosmetic. My support for this appropriation comes with the expectation that the city will more strenuously assert its influence with our shelter partners. And what does that mean? That means insisting upon meaningful responses when concerns are raised, Not procedural box checking or temporary fixes designated to quiet criticism. It means a willingness to look honestly at patterns, not just individual incidents. and to push for real improvements in the practice and the culture.

I particularly trust that the city managers approaching these agreements carefully and deliberately and that when this funding is dispersed, it is paired with clear standards Active monitoring and sharing, understanding that the partnership does not mean abdication of our responsibility. So our most vulnerable residents deserve better than lip service, and our partners should understand That continued public investment carries real expectations. I thank you and I yield the floor.

Thank you, Councilor Simmons. I see Councilor Zusy's.

um through you Mayor Siddiqui I just wanted to this is great news that we got this grant so is it a federal grant and were we anticipating it or if are we just thrilled that we got this money Do you know what I mean? Was it budgeted? Were we anticipating? Is this something we get every year? Is this something new?

The Cincinnati Manager Seminole?

Through you, Madam Mayor, this is a federal grant that we have received for a very long time. This was, as you may recall, many of our HUD-related grants. were subject to conditions. Either we weren't getting the money or they were subject to conditions that it wasn't clear we could agree to. The fact that we are appropriating the money now is a result of HUD having entered into agreements which included our and if Megan's still here, if you have more questions, she could join in, but which included our being able to cross out The conditions that were unacceptable because of the pending injunction in the King lawsuit that is

which we've talked about a number of times here. But this particular funding, the city manager, knowing that we had the federal funding allowed us to actually contract with these shelters beginning in July because although it's not a lot of money for each of the individual shelters they count on this money and so we were operating under the assumption that if those funds did not ultimately get released by HUD, that these would be covered through that federal stabilization fund. Fortunately, we now have been given authority by HUD to go ahead And so we will be able to continue this funding to the various shelters. And if I might say something in response to

Simmons. I appreciate your comments and I know that we worked closely with your office over the course of the last year Last two years when there were some complaints and we were able to develop stronger systems for supporting individuals who had complaints in the shelters. And I want to say that's something which we would expect to continue to happen as we move forward.

Counselor Zusy, did you have anything else?

Yeah, I just, I thank you so much, and I'm so grateful, former assistant city manager Seminoff, that you are still here and engaged in and helping us in so many different ways. Thank you so much.

Through you, Madam Mayor, I just want to say I'm just here through this weekend and then we will have a new assistant city manager. You will just be seeing me as a constituent, no longer as the Assistant City Manager. Thank you. We're very lucky to have you so close by.

Councillor Simmons, did you have anything else?

Thank you, Manager. I just wanted to say to Assistant City Manager Simon, thank you for that response. It's important. and you said this in the response that we do the funding because we want to keep the services going but it's also important that we take The necessary steps to make sure our partners are treating our clients and residents some respectfully. So thank you for that answer. Although I was going to say, I thought you'd be tired, but I'm glad you're here. It's always good to see you. Are you on the floor, Madam Chair?

I do not see any other hands on this. So on a motion by Councilor Simmons on the appropriation. and placing city manager agenda item number seven on file. We'll do a roll call. Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The money has been appropriated and city manager agenda item number seven is placed on file. We're moving on to city manager agenda item number 10. A communication transmitted from Yan Huang, city manager relative to the appointment or reappointment of the following people as constables for terms of three years.

Councilor Zusy, you have the floor. Thank you so much, Mayor Siddiqui. Just a quick question again. I know there's a constable that opens up the Harvard commencement every year. I did a little Googling, and I understand that they serve legal process, provide eviction notices, and do other... Law Enforcement. Are these usually police, members of our police force that do this work? And again, is it a paid position? Is it a full-time position? Or is it an honorary position? Through you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor. So, A constable is a position established under state law, and we also have an ordinance on constables. We don't employ them. They're not employees of the city, but it's a designation that the city is authorized to appoint someone with. Often private security companies employ constables or, as you mentioned, process servers are often constables. So when a constable is appointed with the power to serve process, they are process servers. And the city's role is doing some background investigation that if you want to hear more about, the police commissioner can speak to. and then the city manager appoints the constable for a term of three years.

Oh, so do we have one or do we have many?

Through you, Madam Mayor, there are multiple constables. So when their term is up, if they're reappointed or if someone new is appointed, it comes up before the council. I don't know the exact number. The city manager's office might have that information of how many have been appointed.

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I think, Councilor Zusy, you may be thinking in terms of Harvard commencement of the Middlesex Sheriff, of which there is only one.

Okay, again, it's just a mystery to me about who these people are. So a private security firm might provide them, make them accessible to the city and we hire them? for who hires them? Did you hire them, city manager?

So if I may, through you, Madam Mayor. So it's, it's, The title and the authority is designated by the city manager by state law, but they're not city employees. They're not police officers. The city does not employ constables. Just the city manager by state law has the authority to designate, to appoint someone to be a constable. And so, like I said, some are employed by private security firms, some work for a process server company or themselves are self-employed doing process serving. So that type of work.

Yeah, thank you so much for that clarification.

Any other questions on this? Hearing none, seeing none, we'll go ahead on a motion by Councilor Zusy to approve the appointments and place City Manager Agenda Item 10 on file.

Al-Zubi, Vice Mayor Azeem, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor McGovern, Councilor Nolan,

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The appointments are approved and City Manager Agenda Item 10 is placed on file. We're moving on to City Manager Agenda Item 11. Communication transmitted from Ian Huang, City Manager, relative to awaiting report item number 25-69 regarding a review of the previous Home Rule petition and preparing a new... petition that would allow Cambridge to enact a real estate transfer fee to be sent to the state legislature. Councilor Nolan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. This is an exciting time. We have to refile this petition because The council has sent several into the state legislature each time. It has not gone through, but we do have to refile it in order for it to be heard. There have been some questions raised about, for instance, whether we can do... We got an email about... ensuring that this does not end up raising rents for multifamily zoning because that is something apparently LA is... and some other housing advocates are concerned about. I did reach out to the city solicitor earlier today and she wasn't, she did think some of the ways that the council could changes in the future would be possible, but she's not certain. So I will exercise my charter right so that I can make sure that those questions are before us the next time that we are looking at this before we file it with the state legislature to ensure that we're all in sync with what it is that we can and may not do with this petition.

But again, I'm in favor of it, had filed some of this, but I think there's some unanswered questions.

Thank you, Councilor Nolan. Councilor Nolan exercises her charter right on city manager agenda item number 11. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to suspend the rules to bring forward Late City Manager Agenda Item. And I'm going to, and other items, I'm going to go to co-chair of the Ordinance Committee, Councilor McGovern.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. There's a number of things we can do right now to bring Cambridge Street in front of us. So I'd like to move first to suspend the rules to bring forward the late communication from the city manager. as well as the late communication from other city officers filed by yourself and Councilor Nolan.

We'll do a roll call on bringing forward those two items.

Al-Zubi?

Yes. Yes. Vice Mayor Zien?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

So we have the late city manager agenda item. That's the revisions to Cambridge Street zoning petition and the communications from other city officers. We have one more vote. Councilor McGovern?

Yeah, I think we should move suspension to bring forward, but we have to vote to take the Cambridge Street zoning off the table. So I'd like to move suspension to do that.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Madam Mayor, I'll turn it back to you for discussion, and then depending on how that goes, there are potential other votes after that.

Great. Thank you, Councilor McGovern. So we have multiple items before us. We have the city manager late. The revisions, we have the communication from other city officers, the actual petition itself. I'll go to Councilor Nolan to talk about the communication from other city officers.

Thank you. But before we do that, Mayor Siddiqui, the late Communication from City Manager. Is that on Granicus or whatever the new system is? I'm just making sure that we all have access to it. Or was it emailed to us?

Yeah, it was provided.

I'm just having trouble seeing it on the regular screen now, but I know it was emailed to us separately, so I guess we could just use that.

Yes, all of us should have it. And it was my understanding that it was also on the Granicus. But we can have Naomi pull it up as well for someone. City Manager, did you want to say anything?

Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, I believe the meeting portal is updated, and so it is showing up as an agenda item number 12 on the City Manager's agenda, but it did go up late.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, so I think all of our colleagues received and was part of the agenda. Mayor Siddiqui and I worked on The Cambridge Street petition. This is a compromise from what was originally on the agenda. It's laid out in the memo accompanying these zoning changes, which respond to many of the community feedback that we have. This is, as in any time we take on, a very important and also quite far-reaching zoning Conversation across the city. There are a range of voices. There are people who would like something the original or something even more aggressive. There are people who want nothing. There are people who want everything in between.

and thank you Mayor Siddiqui for working with me on what seems to me to be, and I hope the council agrees, to be a reasonable compromise of ensuring that development can happen and will happen in line with many of the goals of the community including some additional Setback, some open space, allowing housing. We have already put in place the process by which we would look at ground floor retail, which was something that Jason Owls from the East Cambridge Business Association, many of the other Small business owners, Patrick McGee also signed the letter, encouraged us to pass these amendments and then pass the zoning instead of waiting. I know there are many people who are disappointed that I have said that if these amendments pass that I will be supporting the There's an underlying zoning petition. Instead of letting it expire, we can always improve things. And I don't believe in acting in a way that is Capricious or Just Too Quickly.

However, this process has been going on for several years. These amendments are very much in line with the Our Cambridge Street work that a huge range of people in the city were involved in. So I'm very glad that we are presenting this to the council. We hope that they pass so that we can more than as a city and adopt the petition tonight, which before it expires. and then move on to a range of other issues that the city is facing. I'm not sure if you want me to go into more detail on this, Mayor Siddiqui. It is laid out in our memo, but I'm happy to talk a little bit more about it if that isn't raised by our colleagues in the ensuing discussion.

Thank you, Councillor Nolan. You know, I think we can open it up to questions and comments. So I have Councillor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So happy to support these amendments. I did want to say that, you know, From my perspective, it's a very, very mild improvement over the current zoning. You know, Cambridge Street is already six stories. This would keep it six stories. The Lechmere parcel you know before was 15 in the cambridge street study was 12 this would bring it down to 10 but already it's been zoned or permitted for six at eleven and a half percent inclusionary So the odds that someone would re-permit it at 20 just to get to 10 which is kind of a dead zone I think is unlikely. The only, I think, new housing we're expected to get from this is the Webster Street parcel, which is something, but also I would say that, you know, with this plus the changes to open space and the follow-up we'll do on first floor retail, which is...

yeah even less profitable than housing uh means that you know overall i think that cambridge street once it's all done will make housing harder to pencil in the city Thank you so much for joining us. even if I'm not entirely excited about the results. But thank you to Councilor Nolan and Mayor Siddiqui for coming together and trying to get us something that helps us get this over the finish line.

I will go to Councilor Jeeb and Serena Wheeler.

Thanks, Madam Mayor. I believe other folks have their hands up if anybody wants to go first, otherwise I'm happy to go. I really appreciate the amendment from Councilor Nolan and sort of the thought that went to it. Just briefly on the amendment itself that I'm will be a no for the same reasons there was a no on the previous amendment and the amendment on Mass Ave. And that's because anything above six stories is... in the range where we're getting inclusionary housing. So if we're reducing from eight stories to six stories, those are two stories where we're gonna be getting affordable housing units. And I just can't constantly reduce that. I do expect the amendment will pass though. And so on the underlying petition, I have spent a bunch of time over the last few weeks and months looking at the current buildings on Cambridge Street, looking at the lot sizes on Cambridge Street, I think the important context for this discussion tonight is that whether this proposal passes or not, buildings are going to continue to be redeveloped on Cambridge Street like they are now.

whether the council does anything or if we just we just call it a night right now buildings are going to keep happening the choice is not between development and no development the choice is between shorter buildings that are 100% market rate, which is what we're getting now, or slightly taller buildings that are going to create hundreds of new affordable homes. The buildings that are being now are like the one that came up in my research on Cambridge Street. It's right near the King Open School and the Valente Library Branch. It was built in 2024. You can find it on the city's development log and on Zillow if you're curious which one exactly I'm talking about. It's a six-unit, four-story building. It replaced an existing building. And each of the units in that building that was built just recently sold for around a million dollars or more. One of them sold for $1.75 million, which the vast majority of folks in Cambridge cannot afford. And that building had zero affordable housing in it because it was less than 10 units, which is where the city's inclusionary zoning picks in.

That is what's being built right now and that's what's going to continue to get built on Cambridge Street if we take no action. Million dollar units and no affordable housing. The affordable housing overlay that we've passed has worked really well in a lot of places. It has not worked on corridors like Cambridge Street for a number of reasons. We have not seen AHO projects there, and there's basically no IZ units there being built on Cambridge Street. when we talked about the multifamily housing ordinance to end exclusionary zoning last term. There were many folks who argued it wouldn't actually lead to affordable housing. That is not what's happened in reality. We've seen lots of six-story buildings with affordable housing in them being proposed, even under the current economic conditions. If anything, with the objections we're hearing, there's too many six-story and I disagree with that. There's no reason to think that we would see Different result here on Cambridge Street where the lots are similar sizes and corridors are more attractive for taller buildings. This is the place that everybody says we should be having taller buildings.

That's where we're going to see taller buildings with affordable housing in them. I appreciate the amendment from Councilor Nolan and really her work to engage on this and figure out how to get to yes. The main concerns I heard the last few times we talked about this was that about the height, eight stories being too tall, these parcels being too tall, that's been addressed. The local businesses might be impacted. The Local Business Association, as we've heard tonight, is in favor of this with the amendments, the concerns that folks were addressed. So when councilors say they would really like to vote for a proposal because they care about affordable housing, but they can't because there is an important concern and then the concern gets addressed and then there's another concern. It begins to feel a little like sort of Lucy in the football from Charlie Brown sort of pulling it out at the last minute. If you say what you want more housing and corridors, But this isn't quite right. Come bring an amendment. Work on it. I really appreciate Councilor Nolan for doing that.

I mean, the reason, similar reason we passed the multifamily housing ordinance eight to one was not because we had eight city councilors totally in lockstep. It's because we worked together and we had amendments and changes and we got to something. I think the the last piece I want to make on this was something I've been thinking about a lot recently you know in the last term there was a vote to delay bike lanes on Cambridge Street and the argument in favor of not making any changes there was that needed more time for study and progress before we did any changes to Cambridge Street. I listened to those arguments, I heard them, I sat with them, but I voted against that delay because I have I've gotten to know a number of people whose loved ones were killed biking on Cambridge Street, and I could not bear to be responsible for another death due to delay. We know this will create more affordable housing which is the main question I need answered and it feels hypocritical for me to vote for an additional delay here when we know the answer already. The people who need affordable housing are just as important to me every month, every week, every day matters to that person whose life could be changed by having affordable housing.

I gave us a little more time from December because we had another big proposal on North Mass Ave. We've given it more time We're not getting any more affordable housing on Cambridge Street under the status quo, and I can't defend that status quo, so I'll be voting yes to change it tonight. Y'all back.

Thank you, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. I have Councilors Zusy, Councilor Al-Zubi, and then Councilmember McGovern.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. I have a couple points of information. So one, someone brought up during public testimony that with the six stories, would that be for Inman Square as well? So that's one question. And another is a question is some have suggested that there wouldn't be inclusionary at six stories. And is that true or not? And then third of all, will we be discussing the overall? Zoning proposal for Cambridge Street afterwards, or should I be sharing all my thoughts about the proposal right here and now? So those are my three questions.

So this is a space for all of it.

OK. So can you maybe, through you, Mayor Siddiqui, maybe Assistant City Manager Peters can answer whether Inman Square would be six stories or eight stories with this amendment.

Yes, thank you for the question, Councilor Zusy. Through you, Mayor Siddiqui, Inman Square under this revised petition text is at six stories.

Okay, so everything is six stories except for Webster-Windsor, which would be at 10 to 12, and then Lechmere would be 10.

Webster-Windsor would be at 12. and then Leachmare is at 10 under these proposed amendments.

Okay, great. And then maybe through you, Mayor Siddiqui, maybe for our solicitor or one of our solicitors. I'd love to understand, so some have suggested that, you know, so we know currently when we pass multifamily housing or... or when you passed multifamily housing, that the six stories along all our corridors, all the corridors were up zoned so that we would still be incentivizing taller buildings on the corridors so the question is so are we so is it still if you're building six stories two stories or 20% is inclusionary or is that not part of the six stories on Cambridge Street now?

So maybe I'll take the first attempt at that and Solicitor Bear can jump in as needed. But the current inclusionary zoning ordinance, as you know, applies for any project over 10,000 square feet or 10 units. As part of the conversation around this Cambridge Street and the Mass Ave rezonings, the City Council contemplated an amendment that we've included in this draft that would require Thank you so much for joining us today. I did want to note that you know there's been a lot of talk that a lot of projects could you know will go up to six stories or five stories without meeting the inclusionary zoning requirement.

Given the size of the parcels that we consider soft sites or developable sites, we are quite significantly over that 10,000 square foot threshold. So there's always a case where someone could significantly underbuilt their site, but just given the likelihood and the developer's desire to maximize development potential, we do think it's going to be over 10,000 square feet. And then certainly with this additional requirement, inclusionary zoning would be required. Okay.

Again, through you, Mayor Siddiqui, thank you, Assistant City Manager Peters, so much for that explanation or that clarification. So it's likely that some affordable units will be built, but we don't have any calculation of how many. We have no idea how much affordable units will be built, right? And if people are building over six stories, so this would... allow people to build over six stories. So if they want to build over six stories, then do they have... What do they have... If they want to go to eight stories and build inclusionary units, what reviews would they have to... They wouldn't need a special permit. What would they have to go through?

Yeah, thank you. Through you Mayor Siddiqui. So the special permit threshold kicks in at 75,000 square feet. So if projects exceed that, they would have to go to the planning board for a special permit. We do have design review at different thresholds.

So

All of these projects would go through staff review and different degrees of advisory or project review with staff and public meetings.

Okay, but again, you, Madam Mayor, what I don't understand, though, is if the street is zoned for six stories, if someone wanted to go to eight stories, What would they have to do? The street is zoned for six stories.

Yes, so thank you for clarifying the question. If this proposed amendment were to pass and the cap was six stories, you could not go to eight stories regardless if you were to get an additional permit. So six stories would be the cap. except in those, again, those two areas on Cambridge Street that we've said could go potentially up to 10 or 12. But if along the corridor in Inman Square, you can only build up to six stories.

Right, so there would not be any inclusionary units in those six-story buildings unless they're over 10,000 square feet. That's correct. Okay, so over the... Weekend, I attended the Mass Municipal Association meeting at the Convention Center in Boston. And so I was walking down Summer Street which is a much wider street. It's about the width of Mass Ave. So it's 90, I guess Mass Ave is about a hundred feet or anyway, Summer Street is 98 feet so it's a very broad avenue and there are beautiful brick buildings there that are five stories, six stories, seven stories and then of course there's some taller buildings as you get Deeper into the Seaport District.

I worry about Cambridge Street. I also walked Cambridge Street on a very, very cold day last week, and we were walking on the south side of the street. and it was very cold but we had sun because the buildings on the other side of the street were lower so we could still be in the sunlight so what I'm aware of since it's an east-west street that if we build Cambridge Street taller, like to even six stories, we really need setbacks. A setback would allow for light to penetrate the street so that it isn't a dark corridor in the winter. So I do worry about that. And I feel like the proper from my walk of Cambridge Street

I really feel as though four or six stories or four stories with a 10 foot step back is what would really be best for Cambridge Street. But I realize that isn't under consideration at this point. I think six stories is much better than eight stories, but I think that the step back at four stories will really be critical. What I worry about, the other thing that's come to my realization is how much I love Cambridge Street. Because I feel like it's the last vestige of a street with local retail in the city. I mean, it's rich with local retail. It's rich with ethnic businesses, organizations, residents. There's a great diversity there.

And I just worry that with this upzoning, which I... I do feel like growth should be on the quarters, but I feel as though this is a pretty narrow street. And I think especially when I feel like we're giving away these density bonuses, this height to developers without any guarantee. of the production of affordable units or any community benefits. I feel as though Thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate that as a place that could use more height. And I think you could have more height at Leachmere, though I feel for the people in the chocolate factory across the street. because their light will be blocked.

I mean, I really hope Divco West does build a six-story building there because I do think it would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. And I worry about all the Concerns Cambridge Street residents have shared. There already is a lot of congestion. There's a great concern about no parking minimum and adding density to the street. There's, you know, concerns about labs. What I... I will support this amendment because I think six stories is better than eight stories. But overall, I think we... should like wait a month maybe this should go to neighborhood and long-term planning for further discussion but I think we should work out the kinks of the zoning and like consider the step backs consider other things people have discussed like They're really worried about the wet labs. Apparently there already are some wet labs on Cambridge Street.

So residents don't want them there. I think we should make sure we're going to get inclusionary units. I think we should make sure that we're going to get that first floor retail. I think the ideas residents have shared during public testimony about saying Smaller, requiring smaller ground floor retail should be part of the zoning we pass. And we do want to discourage banks and larger businesses. So putting in something about... You can't have huge spaces for banks. I think that would be important to include as well. So again, I will support this amendment because I think six stories is much better than eight stories on that street. I think when we think about upzoning, we have to really think about the context of the neighborhood.

and the axis of the street and look at shadow studies. And I wish... Assistant City Manager Peters. I think it's really important. I know you've got the tools to share what the street would look like at four stories, what it would look like at six stories, what it would look like with the I think it's really important that you, as the head of the planning department, share those images with us so we understand the implications of the Zoning that we're considering. And then also it would be good to have stats to really better understand. I actually really thought that our Cambridge Street study was strong. but you know what it talks about is the goals are support small businesses and I worry this will Force them out.

It'll improve mobility while our bike lanes will improve mobility. It'll increase housing supply, especially affordable housing. But again, it doesn't look like it. Thank you for joining us.

Zuzi. We have a few people. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Anyway, so those are my thoughts. I am committed to upzoning. or coming up with thoughtful zoning for Cambridge Street. But I don't think we're there and I think we should hold off. Let this petition expire. and be a little bit more thoughtful and then push something through in the next month or two with the corrections that people have recommended. Thank you. I yield.

We'll go to Councilor Al-Zubi and Councilor McGovern next.

Thank you Mayor Siddiqui. I'm going to specifically speak on the amendment piece and later on the final petition after we vote on this amendment for clarity. I want to share why I will abstain on this amendment. I currently don't feel like I've been a part of the process around this zoning petition and my concerns are deeper than just the height of the buildings. I'm right now focused on who gets to benefit from the new buildings, not just how tall they are. Thank you for watching! And again, I'd love to speak to the overall petition before we approach that vote. And if not, please let me know as I would like to speak to the overall petition.

I would say, Councilor Al-Zubi, you should just speak to the overall petition as well.

Sure. Yeah. So on the second half of the overall petition, and again, I really approach this from the side of clarity for residents to understand the two pieces. I also want to be clear about why I will be voting no on the overall zoning petition tonight. Over the last few weeks, things have been very intensive, listening to community perspectives, understanding the particulars of this petition, getting up to speed on zoning more broadly. I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to weigh in and disrupt the status quo on housing in our city. But with that said, I don't feel like I've been a part of this process thoroughly enough. I would have appreciated a committee hearing to unpack the issue but I also understand that you all went through that last term and that there's a desire to finish this tonight. It's just hard for me right now to cosign on a process that I wasn't part of, that I didn't help shape, especially when there are concerns about how it went and pieces that aren't in the zoning, and I can't ignore those in good faith.

My thinking is more fundamental than how tall the buildings will be. I want us to think more about who will ultimately benefit from the buildings. The affordability aspect. I want us to consider working class people in our city, our educators, our service workers, and others who largely probably won't be able to benefit at all outside of the subsidized units if they're built. At the core of the issue, I cannot vote to give developers additional value until I can tell our constituents with confidence that our 20% inclusionary housing will actually be delivered. We must refuse to hand over massive development rights to private capital without that guarantee. Our inclusionary zoning requirement is legally reliant on the economic justification study from 2016 that is now out of date. and the new feasibility study arrives in just five months. That's June of 2026 and that's on top of a lawsuit we're now navigating.

So the next study arriving in June will likely show that the 20% is not economically justifiable under the conditions of this current moment. And faced with that, the council will inevitably vote to lower the inclusionary percentage to whatever The study claims is justifiable, which I'm quite concerned about. And then the question on the promise for inclusionary zoning being at 20% in this zoning petition will pretty much evaporate. What makes it really especially difficult for me to support this tonight is we're giving away our leverage for free. The taller heights and additional density contemplated in this petition are incredibly valuable to developers. And if we were to frame these as a density bonus, conditioned explicitly on delivering 20% affordable housing, rather than giving them away in the base zoning, which we have under section 11.203, we would preserve our ability to maintain that 20% requirement even if the Nexus study forces us to lower the base requirement. I mean, we had those conversations even in the last year.

So under the density bonus framework, developers who want to build these new heights would have to deliver 20% affordability. Those that don't want to meet the threshold can build to whatever the base zoning allows with whatever lower percentage the Nexus study supports. And this is one way we might actually be able to guarantee affordability outcomes rather than making promises that we probably know will be broken. 20% is the minimum threshold we can accept for economically stratified buildings to also feel dignified and integrated. And especially according to our own resident experience study, 50% of renters in inclusionary units reported experiencing bias where race was seen as the primary cause. So it's obvious that as the buildings get more economically segregated by race and class, the potential for harm increases. But I also just want to address directly the argument that waiting until June 2026 will delay housing production, because for me, it's not about a delay, it's about doing our due diligence.

Developers right now are waiting to see where our inclusionary program lands and why would they move forward with projects under a 20% requirement when they know that in five months we might just lower that to 12 or 15%. So in a way, our failure to resolve on this uncertainty is in itself freezing development. The petition asks us to observe significant portions of Cambridge Street, which Again, gives developers the legal right to extract significantly more value from the land while the legal foundation for our only community benefit is most likely crumbling beneath us. And I also want to just talk about who benefits from rushing this through. It's not working class Cantabrisians who desperately need affordable housing. It's not small developers who are frozen out by the market by financing costs anyways. It's landowners and large developers who want to lock in new development rights before the inclusionary program is legally tested and before we've had the chance to structure this as a density bonus. Right now, the alternative is right in front of us.

We have a state-level Affordable Homes Act, which includes mixed income social housing as a pilot. We have our own rep, Mike Connolly, who's indicated that the state would entertain a proposal. As part of the June 2026 state capital budget, if something actionable were submitted, so we know that social housing is built by the public, for the public, and to remain for the public, and it's proven that it works. but it is available to us right now if we choose to prioritize it. Yet in this policy order, the council that had passed last September, it was unceremoniously wiped from the awaiting reports list without the report back from the manager that was requested. The December hearing was informative, a good start, but produced no productive progress from staff. I have to ask why because my assumption is most likely that staff are being asked to spend all their time running from a zoning petition to another. essentially chasing the false beliefs that we can build our way out of the affordability crisis through inclusionary zoning alone.

So I'm hoping that we can spend the next five months prioritizing social housing and getting a proposal together for the state capital budget. and when the next study arrives in June, we have a serious conversation about restructuring our approach. And if we aren't facing or focusing on solutions like social housing, that actually decommodify housing and treat it as a human right will almost be treading the line of rebranding gentrification as abundance. My bottom line is upzoning conversations are usually framed as creating opportunity for working class people, which can be true. but oftentimes they serve profit and not people. And right now we're being asked to give away development rights while the only mechanism we have to ensure Community benefit is under intense legal and economic threat. The only emergency we're facing tonight is, again, the affordable housing crisis, as we all know, and this potential... This petition specifically is written with the inclusionary requirement that will likely not be relevant in five months. It is going to be...

making things worse by transferring wealth to landowners without a guarantee of meaningful community benefits. I'm open to voting yes on zoning proposals that deliver meaningful guaranteed community benefits. I just need to feel confident with what we can deliver on affordability when proceeding with these. And I don't think this petition does that for me right now at this time. I know we can do better and we should. I'll yield.

I'll go to Councilor McGovern and then Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. There's a lot here. I had a statement. I'm going to go a little bit off that for a second. First, I want to address the continued This has been a conversation that's been going on for years. And this council, this is why I felt it was important for the previous council to take ownership of this, good or bad. because we were the ones that were doing the work. And I understand that it's probably difficult if you are a new counselor to be coming on in the last minute and being asked to take a very difficult and controversial vote. And so I still believe that we should have taken responsibility. If people are going to get mad, let them get mad at us because we were the ones that have been doing this. But that doesn't mean it's rushed. And I don't believe that this has been rushed.

Second of all, you know, when we hear When folks say, you know, I support building more housing, but then list off 15 other things that they want addressed that make building that housing impossible to actually build Not that those things aren't important. Setbacks, step backs, trees, all of those things. But if you put so many requirements that you then make it impossible to build the housing you allegedly say you want, then you're not going to get it. And no... No one zoning ordinance is going to solve all the ills that we have, which is why we have to have multiple tools. We need social housing. We need inclusionary zoning. We need market rent housing.

So this ordinance is not necessarily going to solve every single problem that everybody has and that we all share. So I'll just say that I continue to believe we have a housing shortage. and I think that allowing eight stories on Cambridge Street would provide more homes for people, more customers for our local businesses and more inclusionary units. Taller buildings will deliver more low income units through IZ. And let's remember that close to 50% of the people who live in inclusionary units earn less than the minimum income requirements to qualify for IZ and they are in those units because of vouchers, including many formerly unhoused people. So in order to get more inclusionary units, when you limit the amount of units that can be built, you're going to therefore get less inclusionary units as well. And so by doing this,

We're not only going to lose affordable housing by dropping from eight stories to six, we're also going to lose housing for those folks who earned too much money to qualify for inclusionary housing or for a voucher, but are still paying about 50% of their income on rent. That is the middle class of Cambridge now. And those are the folks who So those people are going to suffer too. But I will say in terms of the amendments, I don't believe that there are six votes to pass this ordinance without the amendments. And I do believe that we need to pass this.

I think it is better than the current zoning. It is a step forward. Unfortunately, it is not the leap forward that I think we need if we're going to address our housing shortage. But it is better. to pass this than to not pass this. I don't think taking two more months for more community conversation is going to make that much of a difference. I think, you know, people who, the same people who are upset about 8 stories and 6 stories on the corridors are the same people who were upset about that on Mass Ave, the same people that were upset about that in other avenues of the city. I don't think that's going to change. So I think we've had the conversation. I will vote for the amendments. I will vote for the final ordinance. Again, I think it's not what I think we need, but it's better than what we have. Thank you Madam Mayor.

And before I go, I do want to thank our staff, CDD, our professional staff who worked really, really hard. on this and I know how difficult it is to balance all the different visions and wants and desires in the community because there are so many different opinions and I do want to just make sure that I appreciate you. Thank you.

Thank you, Council Member McGovern. Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through you. It's a complicated issue, and I don't think anyone here denies that fact. I will say, like Councilor Al-Zubi, I was not part of the public process and I regret that because I know that there was a A valuable exchange of ideas and I know that city staff spent an exhaustible effort on all of this. But I'm here to represent the people who voted for me. And I'm not going to have those people being disenfranchised because I was not involved in that public process. I'm in favor of allowing the petition to expire and I'm also not going to support this well-intentioned amendment because

As Councilor McGovern just mentioned, I don't want to see an amendment passed. I would like to see the entire petition expire. And I speak about this issue from I come from maybe a more global issue Thank you so much for having me. that our housing shortage issue is a regional issue. This is not a local issue. This is not a Cambridge only issue. We don't live in a silo. This is something that we're experiencing regionally, nationally, and in my lifetime, the city of Cambridge has done and continues to do more than all of the other 351 cities and towns in Massachusetts to alleviate the housing shortage. And we have done that. And over the last maybe decade,

in partnership with the state and the federal government would spend $2.2 billion on the Green Line extension to make the communities of Somerville and Medford easily accessible to the high-paying jobs in Kendall Square. Yet, in the wake of all that, the city council in the last term I guess on February 10th or thereabouts, decided that we should upzone the entire city. Every block, every street, every neighborhood, any size lot. So as of right... On any size lot, a structure of four stories can be built, thereby incentivizing the demolition of single two-family and three-family homes.

without any element of affordability, zero affordability, which clearly will result in the displacement of the middle class as it currently exists in Cambridge. I think it's a well-intentioned zoning ordinance, which has dramatic negative impacts on the city as a whole. And if we take it to its logical, some people would say, fear-mongering conclusion, and we consider The availability of money at maybe a major real estate developer's hands to be deployed to the city of Cambridge would recognize, and let's say, for example, just hypothetically, that person's name might be Donald Trump, he would recognize the massive investment opportunity in the city of Cambridge.

And in one generation, we could eradicate this city and lose neighborhoods. And I look at the city of Cambridge and its future as a sustainable city, one where we're doing all we can to support and incentivize families here in the city. So that we remain the historically fabulous place to live and raise a family. And I think that that multifamily housing zoning ordinance has the unintended consequences of- Flaherty?

That's not before us.

So you have to tie it back to Cambridge. I'm trying to link it to this. And by linking it to this, I think that it creates... in my view, a dangerous precedent. And I think that the upzoning of Cambridge Street does the exact same thing in that region. It creates an as of right, development of six stories along that corridor, which in turn will have the same impact of causing the displacement of the middle class in that region of Cambridge. And I think it's a bad idea. I'm fully in favor of the upzoning on the Webster Ave corridor because I think it's appropriate. And like Councilor Al-Zubi, I think that we have, as a city, when we allow these zoning amendments like this one, we're giving up our leverage. And if we do anything... in terms of housing development along

the Cambridge Street Corridor to six stories, eight stories, 10 stories. All of this should be through a review which requires a special permit hearing with community involvement The opportunity for input and with specific criteria has to be met. And without that component in this particular zoning ordinance, and again without being involved in the public process I would have to you know for the record not that It makes any difference at this point, but I have to say that I can't vote in favor of it. So thank you, Madam Mayor, and I yield. and I'm sorry to be as loquacious as I was. I know that we're listening to each one of us and I appreciate your attention and your respect and I don't mean to belabor. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Flaherty. Has everyone who has wanted to speak on this issue spoken at least once? I'm going to just briefly speak and then go to Councilor Azeem. You know, I'll say that I hear my colleagues on their various points of view. Oh, Councilor Simmons, did you want to speak before I go? Okay. I hear you all. On the various points of view, I think I won't repeat what some of my colleagues have said. I'll just say that I think the amendments were an attempt to incorporate some of that feedback that we had heard and This process started in the fall of 2021. And it, you know, If you look, there's a 105-page community engagement summary about this process and exactly what was done. 105 pages. And so the assertion around

Thank you so much for having me. The questions of, you know, some of the changes and the impacts. And I hear that. I think we are trying to do a lot of things. And we have our 100% overlay. We have There's a lot of fervor over... multifamily housing. And I know many of us are open to amendments. We're talking about social housing. So I do think there's no lack of commitment from Most of this council on many of these important things and I think right now before us is an attempt to say, look, we did hear that the process did recommend six stories.

and with some greater heights and sure there can be critiques of process and I'm so open to that I'm open to improving on a lot of different things but I think on substance I do think we are taking into account a number of things and namely also the feedback from our business association, from others who at first were saying, you know, you should let this expire. You know, we don't like what happened here. And so... I do think there are people who've come and said, we've come forward on this. And so I did want to recognize that. So I wanted to just make that brief point. I'll go to Councilor Azeem.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just had a few remarks. I typically tend to keep my comments short, but I did want to just address some misconceptions. You know, my colleague, Councilor Flaherty, said, you know, he supports the Webster part, but all the other changes, you know, are a bit too much. I would just say that, you know, Inman is staying at six. It's already at six. There is no change there. Cambridge Street is at six. It's staying at six. There's no change there. And the Lechmere parcel has already been permitted at six at a lower Inclusionary. So there's functionally no change there. So it is what the proposal my fellow counselor wanted and that basically this is just a change to Webster. He was also concerned about it not being by right but requiring special permit. Congratulations, the Webster block requires a special permit. So I think we should check off those boxes. The process has been going around until 2021, and I agree that A three year process or really four year process was way too long. Every term we have new counselors.

If we want to make sure that all of our counselors are part of the entire process, we should make our processes shorter. um i would say that there's been concerns about displacement but also i would say that you know it's notable that the first buildings that were really proposed or multi-family housing where you know the Spears Funeral Home, the Harriet Jacobs House, buildings that had no residents living in there because the place where the economics work best are places that Aren't already residential. And so what we've seen is actually been a lot of development in places where we would want to see it. I would I would say that there was concern that the study will come back and say that like inclusionary zoning needs to be adjusted. I would say the nexus is not based on the feasibility, the economic feasibility of inclusionary zoning. It's based on diversity, which is inherently built in, economic diversity. So I think that that's just not how the nexus study is filled up on how inclusionary zoning is built up. There was concerns about other communities and Cambridge doing way more than everyone else.

I would say the portion of the city, Everett, Revere, Boston, lots of other places have been building more housing per capita than we have. Just a few more short responses was, you know this is basically just a zoning for webster at this point um and there's lots of great ideas it is a housing emergency and we can either take a stance of like yes and we all have slightly different approaches some people really love the age a little bit more, some of the multifamily, some other proposals, and that we're going to try to build each other up and try a yes and approach with all different sorts of answers. Or we can break each other down. Like I have my issues with social housing. I think of it as a way of weakening the AHO and actually saying that we should pay more for 33% affordable housing. I don't think the numbers make sense. But I understand that other colleagues want to and I'm like, okay, let's explore. Let's try to prove that.

but I see social housing as a way to actually make more market rate housing and less affordable housing at worse economic so I don't really understand that but we give each other the opportunity and grace to try to make our points And I would just finally just end off by saying that I think that this is an approach that other places are visiting, both the new mayor of New York and the new mayor of Seattle, Zoran and Kate Wilson. are really looking at our examples and saying that this is the approach that we want to take between multifamily housing and Cambridge Street. I think that we've had a long enough discussion. I would just like to vote on the amendments, but I just wanted to address those points.

Simmons, anything you'd like to say?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think it's all been said quite well and quite often. So if anything, I would like to move that we vote on this. Thank you. I yield.

And I will go to Councilor McGovern there. As has been mentioned, there was a communication on the different various changes and amendments in the packet. So, Councilor McGovern.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. So the next order of business would be for the council to vote to amend the Cambridge Street zoning petition by substitution with The attached petition text, revised map, and revised map boundary descriptions put forward in the late order by the city manager. So that's on the amendments.

So the motion is before us, Councilor Nolan?

Just to be clear, thank you through you, Mayor Siddiqui, to Ordinance Chair McGovern. This would mean we'd be voting on... The amendments proposed in the communication from other city officers, is that what we're, this vote?

Okay. So just, Madam Mayor, just in case people haven't looked. So the late city manager agenda item took what was in the communication filed by Mayor Siddiqui and Councilor Nolan. Put that into ordinance language. We will now vote on that so that that will be substituted into the Cambridge Street language and then that will become the language that we eventually in a few minutes vote on. as amended.

Councilor Nolan, does that make sense?

Yes, thank you for the clarification, Mayor Siddiqui and Chairman McGovern.

So per Council Member McGovern's motion, we have to first vote on the amendments and then the underlying petition. So clerk, will you please call the roll on the amendments?

So we're calling the roll on the amendments by the City Council agenda by the City Manager, correct, Madam Mayor?

Yes.

Okay. Councilor Al-Zubi?

Present.

Present. Vice Mayor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty? No. No. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? No. No. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have six members recorded in the affirmative, two members recorded in the negative, and one recorded as present.

On that motion, the amendments pass.

So the next vote would be to vote the Cambridge Street zoning ordinance as amended.

We'll go ahead with that roll call seeing no hands.

Al-Zubi.

No.

No. Vice Mayor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty. No. No. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy. No. No, Mayor Siddiqui. Yes. Yes. And you have six members recorded in the affirmative and three recorded in the negative.

We're almost there. We're almost there. Go ahead, Councilor.

We now need to vote the city manager, the late city manager agenda item number 12 and communication and report from other city officers. I believe it's number two. to be placed on file.

So we'll go ahead on that motion from Council Member Govan to place those two items on file.

Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

So those are in place in the file. We have one more and we'll go ahead to Councilor McGovern.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Through you, I would like to move suspension of the rules to move reconsideration, hoping the same will not prevail.

So there's going to be two votes here. So clerk, you'll lead us through those votes.

So the first is to move suspension. Councilor Al-Zubi.

Can I do a point of order here and ask you all to explain what are these votes specifically on?

Sure. Clerk, please go ahead. Suspension of the rules basically means that we're going out of order of the regular agenda of the meeting. to bring something else forward. So we're suspending the rules so Councilor McGovern can move reconsideration, which means if reconsideration is approved, then there will be no reconsideration allowable before the 12 o'clock Wednesday final. I don't know if I was very clear with that.

Yeah, I'll just add that basically if there's a motion to reconsider under Robert's rule, you can bring back something that was already... voted on and that can be redebated and possibly changed. And so we're saying that we want this matter to be closed. and so you wouldn't allow reconsideration so that would be a no vote and historically on various matters we've done No votes on reconsideration because we feel that the matter should be closed and you have a certain amount of time to do the reconsideration. If I've missed anything, anyone, feel free to add.

I'm Madam Chair. Yes.

Councilor Simmons.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Also, reconsideration can only be done, but I want to make sure I'm correct if you are on the prevailing side. Yeah. Yes. Any further questions?

Okay, so Councilor Al-Zubi, did that answer your question?

Yeah, so my understanding is the first vote is on the suspension of the rules and the second vote is on the reconsideration. Yes, exactly. Okay, gotcha.

I have questions, clarifying questions. I'll go to Councilor Flaherty and then Councilor Zusy.

No, Councilor Simmons answered my question under the point I was going to make a point of parliamentary procedure to ask under Robert's rules that the only the only The only movement under emotional reconsideration must be the prevailing party, not the aggrieved party. So it's been answered. Thank you.

You've been studying, Councilor Flaherty. I appreciate it. I always do. We'll go to Councilor Zusy.

I just wanted to say I was talking to a Canterburyian lawyer who was saying that the council didn't used to ask for the suspension of rules and the Um, inability to reconsider things. It's just something that we've been doing more recently. I mean, they're actually Having more time to think about things can sometimes be a good thing. So it doesn't seem like we should always be locking every vote into a final vote.

And we'll have rules discussion this week, so feel free to bring that up there.

I would say, Madam Mayor, this is something that we've been doing since... I got elected in the school committee 22 years ago, so I'm not sure who gave that advice on that, Councilor Zusy, but we have done this for a very long time on important issues. This is not unusual.

So now that we've had questions answered, clarified, we'll go back to the vote, please.

On suspension, Councilor Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Flaherty. No. No. Councilor McGovern. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. No. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have seven members recorded in the affirmative and two recorded in the negative.

Suspension prevails. We'll go on to the reconsideration vote, please.

On reconsideration. Councilor Al-Zubi?

No.

No, Vice Mayor Azeem. No. No, Councilor Flaherty. No. No, Councilor McGovern. No. No, Councilor Nolan.

No.

No, Councilor Simmons.

No.

No. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? No. No. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? No. No. And you have one member recorded in the affirmative and eight recorded in the negative.

McGovern. Was there anything else? I think we've wrapped up.

That is all on this issue, Madam Mayor. Thank you, everyone, for your patience.

Yeah, thank you, everyone. Thank you for going through this. The Cambridge Street petition, zoning petition has been ordained as amended. We are now done with the city manager's agenda, so we will go ahead to policy orders. President of the City Council, and I ask that you raise your hands. We'll go to Councilor Al-Zubi. I'd like to pull one and three. Councilor Al-Zubi pulls one and three. Councilor Zusy. You're muted, Councilor Zusy.

I apologize. Two and nine. Two and nine.

Councilor Nolan?

It's been pulled, Mayor Siddiqui, I'm fine.

Okay, so we've pulled one, two, three, and nine. And so we'll go ahead and do a roll call. Zubi, you're not pulling number eight. No, but yeah, no. Okay, so we'll do a roll call on adopting policy orders four, five, six, seven, and eight.

Councilor Al-Zubi. Yes. Yes, Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes, Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes, Councilor McGovern?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes, Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The balance of the policy orders. We'll go to policy rule number one, that the city manager ask the appropriate departments to review the city's digital equity work to date, including the Thank you for joining us. and to propose how we can better meet their needs and to report back to the council by June 2026 on internet access programs. This was filed by Councilor Zusy, Councilor Nolan, Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler. and Vice Mayor Azeem. This was pulled by Councilor Al-Zubi. I'll go to the lead sponsor, Councilor Zusy, unless she yields to Councilor Aya. Councilor Zusy?

This is a policy order that we introduced last spring with the same co-sponsors. but we forgot to ask for a report back so we've resubmitted this policy order asking for a report back because I realize at least that we may not have the 150 to 200 million estimated to invest in municipal broadband right now over the next like five years. But it's absolutely essential that all of our residents have digital access. And I'm really happy for the $100,000 grant that we just received, the Cambridge Public Library just received. for their digital navigator program. But what I wanted, and I guess what we wanted, was a broader report back on what else is happening in Cambridge housing communities

and other programs that have existed over time. And we would like an update on the status of them because we want to make sure that everybody really has digital access. With that, I yield.

Go to Councilor Al-Zubi.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I would like to exercise my charter right on this policy order to better understand it, especially as it contextually relates to municipal broadband.

Zubi exercises return rate and policy number one will move to policy number two that the city manager is requested to work with relevant city departments regarding incorporating plant-based solutions into the Sustainable Cambridge Initiative, incorporating plant-based practices and city operated events and using municipal communication channels to promote sustainable and affordable food and drink practices throughout the city. This was filed by Councilor Nolan and Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler, Councilor McGovern and myself. This was pulled by Councilor Zusy, but I will go to Councilor Nolan as the lead sponsor. Councilor Nolan, unless you yield, Councilor Nolan, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui, and I'll just make a few remarks related to this policy order before yielding to Councilor Zusy. As we heard in public comment, I want to thank all the folks from the plant-based treaty. who came to public comment. I know they met with, I think, many city councilors. And they're really working to ensure that Cambridge is part of the leading edge of cities across the country and, in fact, the world that are looking into every single way that we can address Not only emission and climate, but this also gets at the heart of a lot of public health as well. So again, it also improves social justice, economic well-being. This whole policy order is about supporting Cambridge in reducing its consumption based emissions and Getting the word out to the public at large about the importance of this for that climate work, but also for public health. As some of the public comment noted, this doesn't restrict anybody's individual choices.

What it does do is, what it would do if we move forward, and it asks the city staff to really incorporate plant-based solutions, not only into sustainable Cambridge, but into everything that we do. and incorporate purchasing practices across the city. Again, no one's diet has to change overnight, but I would say everyone's diet can be improved. The emission pollution that is directly caused by all of our diets is something that we should be prioritizing because it's something we control and also it's easy and you can still have a lot of tasty things and still just reduce The emission pollution that comes with every single choice we make related to eating. So I'd be really excited for the council to pass this policy order. There's a lot of folks in the community, many of whom came to public comment, who are willing to work with us on this.

And again, this is really about setting the stage for Cambridge to join some of the leaders in the country and the world who are working on this really, really important issue related to our public health goals as well as our climate reduction and emission pollution reduction goals. So I hope these more plant-based food choices is going to be a great way for residents also to work with each other and educate each other and help The city and therefore then the world as a role model move towards a more sustainable lifestyle. So that's... My reason for bringing this forward, and I'm really grateful. I know there's several other councillors, including Councilman McGovern, who had worked with this a lot, and he is a co-sponsor. He might want to speak before we go to Councilor Zusy.

Who was the co-sponsor? It was, yeah, any of the co-sponsors? Councilor McGovern. Councilor McGovern, I don't see. Oh, yeah, your hand is up. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, through you. I just want to thank Councilor Nolan. for putting this policy order together. I actually got approached with this issue maybe a year and a half ago through the Mass Association. MSPCA that was endorsing this work through some of their animal rights work and And then as Councilor Nolan said, we were approached again more recently by some of the other groups that wanted us to put this forward. I just... I want to thank Councilor Nolan for actually writing it and putting it together because I dropped the ball on it. But I appreciate her taking the lead and sponsoring this. And I think an important point that she said is that This doesn't force anybody to do anything, but it is so that we have a greater awareness of this issue.

can make some progress and do a better job with healthy eating and environmental issues. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I yield.

Thank you. We'll go to Councilor Zusy.

Thank you. Through you, Madam Mayor, I wanted to thank Councilor Nolan also for initiating this. I also met with the plant-based treaty people last fall, and I was really impressed with their presentation. And she, Councilor Nolan just beat me to drafting a policy order about it. I think it's great to get information out about this and for the city to model it. and I would like to be added as a co-sponsor for the policy order Would anyone else like to be added as a co-sponsor?

Do any folks have any questions or comments on this before we go ahead and ask that Councilor Al-Zubi be added? So on that motion, we'll do a roll call to add Councilor Zusy to the policy order. Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Councilor Zusy is added to that policy order. We can go ahead and adopt the policy order as amended on a roll call, please.

Al-Zubi.

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem.

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes, Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes, and you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Policy order number two as amended is passed. We'll go to policy order number three. That the city managers requested to work with relevant city departments to prioritize... Thank you for joining us. of Brattle Street by restoring two-way traffic to JFK Street could enhance the square. This was filed by Councilor Nolan, Councilor Simmons, myself, and Councilor Zusy. This was pulled by Councilor Al-Zubi. We'll go to Councilor Nolan and any of the co-sponsors to speak on this. Councilor Nolan and then Councilor Simmons.

Thank you, Mayor Siddiqui. This policy order is about something the council has been working on, as I think is noted, for many, many years. There's been lots of folks across the city who are interested in this. and the Harvard Square Business Association, as we heard in public comment. wants us to move forward with some pilots. And the whole idea is that we are all on record. The council has been on record in a number of ways of supporting more opportunities to pedestrianize sections of the public way. in order to enliven the community, help local businesses, build community. We have worked as a group to pilot a number of pedestrianization opportunities. We can continue that work in 2026. The policy order really asked the city staff to prioritize these pilot opportunities pretty much immediately. We have several streets that are named in the policy order to move forward and I think if we pass this it really says to the city we want these to happen as soon as possible.

We also believe partly because the world has changed in the last few years in terms of availability of information and availability of Data, particularly in transportation and traffic, that we do not need a very expensive and time-consuming consultant study to move forward. I hope that the city will understand that we can move forward with some pilots, but that also the dream for me is still to make sure that we follow the example of leading cities in Europe and several in this country as well. to use pedestrianization as a strategy for building community and helping small businesses including that stretch of Battle Street which is identified in earlier policy orders, which would require some redirection of some of the other streets, but it's eminently feasible and does not require an expensive lengthy study. So I hope that we can move forward and have on the ground problems solved by with

Thank you, Councilor Nolan.

We'll go to Councilor Simmons.

Thank you Madam Chair. Let me just start by acknowledging Councilor Nolan for taking the lead on this policy order and for doing the work, the hard work of Keeping your focus practical and achievable, especially in this tight budget environment. I also want to recognize Denise Gilson, whose longstanding advocacy for more welcoming people selected Harvard School has been a real spark behind this effort. This order reflects years of community conversation, careful walkthroughs, shared interests, and testing ideas thoughtfully rather than overstudying them. So I support this approach because it prioritizes real-world pilots, respects fiscal constraints, and gives us an opportunity to learn quickly, collaboratively, and transparently about what works for residents, businesses, and businesses alike. So I hope our colleagues will see fit to support this. And with that, I respectfully yield the floor back to you.

Thank you, Councilor Simmons. Councilor Zusy, did you want to speak? Okay, great. We'll go to Councilor Al-Zubi who pulled this.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm okay with voting yes on this policy order and appreciate the work put into it. I do just want to quickly note some thoughts and questions that I have that I'll be curious about. Thank you so much for joining us. is in that area despite the fact that there is traffic moving there. I'm worried about the safety of pedestrians, drivers, bikers, and anyone else. I'm looking forward to understanding the feedback on this report just a few questions on are we thinking outside of the box here as much as we can are we only going to consider one way forward toward pedestrian pedestrianization, or can we leave room for a range of options? Would this just need more adjustments than what is on this policy order currently? Is it simply enough to go back to two-way traffic?

I have a lot of questions and will be curious as I do care about the pedestrianization of Harvard Square since it's such a busy area in our city. So I'll be checking out the report and would love to.

Any other questions? on the policy order before us. I don't see any, so we can go ahead and do a roll call on adopting policy order number three. Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem? Yes. Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Policy order number three is adopted. We now are on to policy order number nine, that the mayor of Hebron appoints a committee to screen applicants for the position of city clerk. This was filed by myself and Vice Mayor Azeem and pulled by Councilor Zuzi. Before I go to Councilor Zuzi, I will ask for a motion by Councilor Azeem on suspension to bring forward communications from other city officers. Number four. which is a communication for me transmitting information about the search process for a permanent city clerk so that we can have both of those together as we talk about the policy order and were things left off with the previous. Search. So on that motion, we'll do a roll call for suspension.

Councilor Al-Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Nolan? Yes. Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy?

Yes.

Yes. Mayor Siddiqui?

Yes.

Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

The communication from other city officers and before is before us alongside this policy order. And I'll just quickly brief the Paul, the communication kind of outlines the history of The City Clerk Search Process, and the fact that there was a process, and I want to thank Councilor Simmons, who as Mayor led that process and several of the city councilors who were involved. And as was mentioned, I think there was thought put into the fact that while there was a process, there were folks who were evaluated for the position. That the committee at the time was not ready to bring forward recommended finalists.

Councilor Simmons, if you want to add anything, I'll yield to you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and thank you for bringing this forward and restarting the process. As you said, there was a committee meeting I want to thank Naomi Stephan who helped us by we sent out the job description. We got a number of resumes back. Those resumes were vetted. we sat down and looked over finalists got those finalists down to another group of finalists and at the end of that although we came very close without saying too much we did not feel confident that we should go forward with the final product. I'm trying to be vague on purpose. So I guess you could say tag, you're it, Madam Mayor. But I do want to thank my colleagues, for the work they put in. It was well run. We did our best work. This is an important job. And as an important job, we wanted to make sure we got the best

Thank you for that opportunity to explain that and I yield the floor.

Thank you, Councilor Simmons. And I'll say to my colleagues, you know, being on the city clerk search process is all the rage. And so please do let me know if you're interested because we do need you. So I'll go to Councilor Zusy for your questions.

I just wanted to thank Paula Crane for continuing to serve as our clerk when you had signed up for a six-month job. And I wanted to express interest in being on the committee. I think it's very important that we fill this position and soon. and I understand that Somerville is just about to hire a new clerk too so I hope they haven't snatched. The Best Candidates. So I think we need to get on it. And again, Paula, thank you so much for all of your service. But anyway, so I'm eager for us to advance and to find someone that can do the job.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Zosian. Look forward to hearing from others. Yes, Councilor Flaherty.

I'm happy to serve on the committee, Madam Mayor, but I confess that no matter how hard I work in it, We're not going to find anybody as talented and as experienced and as gracious as Paula Crane. So maybe I shouldn't serve on the committee because I don't want to be blamed for hiring her replacement because she's irreplaceable.

We appreciate you, Paula. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I think the best gift to you would be to find someone. We're on it. So on that, on a motion by Councillor Zusy to adopt this policy order and then place communication from other city officers on file, we'll do a roll call. Councilor Al Zubi?

Yes.

Yes. Vice Mayor Azeem?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Flaherty? Yes. Yes. Councilor McGovern? Yes. Yes. Councilor Nolan?

Yes.

Yes. Councilor Simmons?

Yes. Sorry.

Yes. Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler? Yes. Yes. Councilor Zusy? Yes. Yes. Mayor Siddiqui? Yes. Yes. And you have nine members recorded in the affirmative.

Policy order number nine is adopted and the city manager, the communications from other city officers is placed on file. We're done with policy orders, but we're not done with the calendar. So we'll move on to the calendar. There are two items on the calendar. So we'll go to the number one item, which is the communication transmitted from Yan Wang, city manager, relative to the final landmark Designation Report for the Nathaniel Stickney House at 45 Mount Auburn Street. This charter right was exercised by Councilor Al Zubi at our last council meeting, January 12th. So I will go to Councilor Al Zubi.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. So some context, I exercised my charter right to better understand what was going on in the case of this landmarking decision. Tonight, I will be voting in favor of landmarking the Nathaniel Stickney House for two main reasons that I just wanted to note. The first is in recognizing the significance of the space within a historical district such as Harvard's. and I believe that landmarking can assist with appreciating its significance historically, culturally, and socially. I mean, we're talking about one of the most historical areas in the United States. The second is out of support for the organizations and people who made the Democracy Center what it was. My understanding is that there could have been significantly more intentionality placed into bringing community members and organizations into the conversation about next steps. It has been almost two years since this has started, granted probably more because

it's not easy to take the step to close down and think about the future and I know Ian is interested in doing that work and I believe him in good faith and because of that I think We'll go to Councilor Azeem and then Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I will not be voting in favor of this today. First of all, I would say that Harvard Square is already a conservation district. There's already an extensive process in place to make sure that buildings fit the character, and it's a conservation district that I strongly support. I would also say that like the specifics of this case are not very positive and that the building is falling apart it needs renovations and those renovations have been held off because of this proposal in a way that is actually making the building less habitable. And also on a practical purpose, like this is a vindictive report in that sense that like We all know that the real reason here is not because suddenly people had a very different feeling about the historical nature of the house. but rather because you know in order to do the renovations people had to be moved out but also like you know for a long time the democracy center was providing low-income space as a benefit to the community.

And it's unfair, I think, in my opinion, for them to be punished for doing that as a community service. And also, I think that it's abusing our historical process because this in no way will keep that use the same or anything else it will just keep the building in the same in a way that those renovations can't happen because people are upset about the fact that you know people had to be removed but i will also say that like you know the owners of the property have indicated every desire to welcome people back in after everything is done and work with the community to help people going forward. So for all those reasons, I don't think I can support this designation. Thank you.

We'll go to Councilor Sobrinho-Wheeler.

Thanks, Vladimir, through you. I have spent a lot of time in this building at organizing meetings, at campaign launches, at South Asian community open mics, and I was proud to be the lead sponsor of a policy order last term calling on the Foundation for Civic Leadership to keep the Democracy Center open and Listen to the community groups that were impacted and sit down and have more meetings with them and come to a resolution. We need more community gathering spaces like the one it served. We have some wonderful public libraries and meeting rooms and public booths This landmarking petition by the Historical Commission unfortunately doesn't do anything to mandate that the Foundation for Civic Leadership or any other entity that would be in this building actually use this building as a community gathering space. If the Historical Commission had submitted a petition that did that, or if the Historical Commission put forward a proposal for the city to purchase this building, I would vote for that in a heartbeat. But in reading through the report, it's

Pretty clear that it would only preserve specific architectural features of the building and not any protections for actual community use. The landmarking would still even allow for major changes to the building. There's a line directly from the perdition, quote, "...the proposed designation offers approval in principle for removal of the L and one strict brick addition as well as relocation of the house to the corner." of DeWolf Street to accommodate new construction. The only thing it provides landmark protections for are specific features and keeping the building roughly the same size, but even that could change. provide another layer of bureaucracy, but not any meaningful protections for the building itself that the Harvard Square Historic District doesn't already provide. The importance of the building has been in its use as a community gathering space, not in the architectural features that are honestly pretty similar to hundreds of other buildings in Cambridge. If the landmarking process did anything to actually guarantee its use as a community space, I would gladly vote for it.

I think that situation also really underlines that we shouldn't have to rely on private entities like the Foundation for Civic Leadership to voluntarily provide affordable public meeting and gathering spaces for Cambridge residents. You know, the city of Cambridge as a public entity should be the one ensuring that we provide more of those spaces. And I hope that's work we can continue to pursue this term. I go back.

We will go to Councilor Flaherty.

Thank you. I won't be supporting the landmark designation of this building. I know the building very well. As a matter of fact, I visited the building many years ago before The Democracy Center was in there, and I'm familiar with its decay. And I would say I agree with Councilor Azeem that this seems to me to be sort of an abuse of the historical process because this is a building that falls in the jurisdiction of the Harvard Square neighborhood. Conservation District, and this is a further encumbrance that I think erodes from the importance of the Historical Commission. Now, I fully appreciate the work that the Historical Commission does. And Mr. Sullivan at the Historical Commission, I think, is outstanding.

When I looked at this, I did a little research. I think his initial report was to recommend to decline the petition for the... for the reasons in his original report. And I think I'm correct about that. So I will not be voting to designate this as a landmark because then it would be, I think, only the 44th building in the history of the city of Cambridge. to be landmarked and this building does not fit that criteria in my view.

We'll go to Councilor Zusy.

Point of information. Can we bring Charlie Sullivan from the Historic Commission in to speak to some of the questions that have arisen? Is that an option?

I don't believe he's on the Zoom, but I'll go to Councilor. I'm sorry, you're Councilor now. I'll go to Deputy City Manager Watkins.

Thank you. Yeah, he's having some challenges logging on. So Paula and Naomi, I just sent an email. I don't know if you could send him a link. He's listing in, but is having a challenge logging in. I apologize.

He was on prior and I don't see him in the Zoom at all now. We can try to get him a link.

Yeah, I don't think we should be making a decision tonight without hearing from Charlie. And I mean, one idea would be to move this discussion to a neighborhood in long-term planning. Committee meeting to better understand his arguments for why it should be landmarked. I mean, what I took from the report was that The building has significance for many different reasons, not only because of its association with the Democracy Center. It was really powerful to hear so many of our public presenters talked tonight about the important role the Democracy Center has played in their lives and in the history of Cambridge and Harvard Square. um the history of Nathaniel Stickney as a someone that was a lumber dealer and a wharf operator but it sounds like it's really the rare um

a wooden frame building that the historic commission unanimously thought, well, all these things, they thought it was important. But they also... What was... Oh, they were worried about the viewshed. And as I was walking up Mount Auburn Street from Harvard Square towards... Central to City Hall. I was really aware. I think what landmarking would allow is for there to be some review. in the development of the property. And I guess I really would trust the Historic Commission in helping to facilitate that review. I would hate to have the bell tower, the view of the bell tower, which is one of those quintessential views Blocked by the new building. So I just feel like...

So instead of it being as of right with this landmarking, there would be some review in the development of the site. That was one of the reasons that it seemed really... I was impressed with the allowances that the Historic Commission had made in the development of the site. They said, you know, they can change, the developer can change the entrance, he can Thank you for joining us. and talking to Charlie recently about how many historical properties have been evaluated for historic review. As of like two weeks ago, you know, 240 properties had been reviewed, but the Historic Commission is really trying to be really thoughtful about how many they consider historical because they don't want to get in the way of development.

So they're only saying like that 60 buildings, that's a quarter of 240 are historically significant, but they are saying this building is historically significant. They've been working with Ian Simons of the Foundation for Civic Leadership for years on it. It seems like they have a copacetic relationship. I was asking Charlie about Councilor Nolan's point Thank you for joining us. But he said the interior had basically been gutted.

Apologies, Councilor Zusy. Mr. Sullivan has joined.